Comparative results of conventional and eversion carotid endarterectomy.
10.4174/astr.2014.87.4.192
- Author:
Jae Hoon LEE
1
;
Bo Yang SUH
Author Information
1. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea. iami1124@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Carotid endarterectomy;
Eversion endarterectomy;
Carotid stenosis
- MeSH:
Academic Medical Centers;
Brain;
Carotid Stenosis;
Endarterectomy, Carotid*;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Korea
- From:Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
2014;87(4):192-196
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Comparative results of conventional carotid endarterectomy (cCEA) and eversion carotid endarterectomy (eCEA) have been reported in many studies. But in Korea, there have been no reports to compare the outcome of the two techniques. Thus, we investigated the results of eCEA compared to cCEA in Yeungnam University Medical Center. METHODS: A total of 120 subjects who underwent CEA were included in this study. Of them, cCEAs were performed in 63 patients and eCEAs were performed in 57 patients. We analyzed the results divided into the early (within 30 days after surgery), midterm (from 30 days up to 1 year after surgery) and late (over 1 year after surgery). RESULTS: Mean age of the patients was 65.9 +/- 7.1 years in cCEA group and 66.8 +/- 7.7 years in eCEA group (P = 0.523). Carotid shunt frequency was higher in the cCEA group (39.7% vs. 19.3%, P = 0.015). There were no statistical differences in the early complications with the exception of a significantly higher risk for new brain lesions in the cCEA group (34.9% vs. 14.0%, P = 0.008). The frequency of complication was same between cCEA group and eCEA group in the midterm. Although there was no statistical significance, the frequency of late complications was higher in the cCEA group compared to eCEA group. Mean follow-up duration was 29.4 +/- 23.5 months. CONCLUSION: These data showed that eCEA was an acceptable procedure and had some advantage compared to cCEA in the aspect of the early and late complication.
