FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2103160695> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2103160695 endingPage "868" @default.
• W2103160695 startingPage "868" @default.
• W2103160695 abstract "We read the article by Rockman et al1Rockman C.B. Halm E.A. Wang J.J. Chassin M.R. Tuhrim S. Formisano P. Riles T.S. Primary closure of the carotid artery is associated with poorer outcomes during carotid endarterectomy.J Vasc Surg. 2005; 42: 870-877Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar with great interest, but do not support the conclusions that primary closure during carotid endarterectomy should be abandoned in favor of either eversion endarterectomy or endarterectomy with patch angioplasty. The primary closure group comprised only 11.8% of the study group. This suggests that this particular technique may have been practiced by surgeons performing fewer carotid endarterectomies than their peers. There is some evidence to support a volume-outcome relationship for carotid endarterectomy. It would be interesting to know if those surgeons performing primary closure had a smaller workload than those using patch closure and eversion endarterectomy. No mention is given regarding the use of quality control to determine the technical success of carotid endarterectomy. The use of completion imaging has coincided with an improvement in outcome in many centers, although cause-and-effect is very difficult to prove.2Padayachee T.S. Arnold J.A. Thomas N. Aukett M. Colchester A.C.F. Taylor P.R. Correlation of intra-operative duplex findings during carotid endarterectomy with neurological events and recurrent stenosis at one year.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002; 24: 435-439Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar During the last 14 years, we have performed 675 consecutive carotid endarterectomies. The primary patch rate was 9.4% based upon small diameter vessels and technical problems with the distal endarterectomy site. A further 3.7% of patients had secondary patching based upon the findings of completion duplex scanning performed after primary closure of the artery but before closure of the wound. The stroke and death rate for the primary closure group was 13 (2.2%) of 586, and that of the patched group was 2 (2.2%) of 89. This stroke and death rate is exactly the same as the best results reported by Rockman et al using eversion endarterectomy and patch closure. The Cochrane review strongly supports the use of patching; however, there are some drawbacks to obligatory use of patch angioplasty.3Counsell C.E. Salinas R. Naylor R. Warlow C.P. A systematic review of the randomised trials of carotid patch angioplasty in carotid endarterectomy.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1997; 13: 345-354Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (99) Google Scholar Patch closure does not necessarily abolish technical error. Carotid patching is also not without risks. Not only is it associated with a longer cross-clamp time than primary closure, but vein patch may be susceptible to central rupture or the development of false aneurysms,4Wheeler J.M. Wright I. Pugh N. Lane I.F. Is there carotid artery aneurysm formation following saphenous vein patch endarterectomy?.Cardiovasc Surg. 2000; 8: 47-50Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar and prosthetic patches carries a risk of graft sepsis.5Borazjani B.H. Wilson S.E. Fujitani R.M. Gordon I. Mueller M. Williams R.A. Postoperative complications of carotid patching pseudoaneurysm and infection.Ann Vasc Surg. 2003; 17: 156-161Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar There is a danger in publishing papers such as Rockman’s that they will be used as evidence in a court of law against a poor outcome using primary closure. Our data indicate that primary closure with selective patching is a safe technique when used in conjunction with quality control in the form of duplex completion imaging. We would strongly recommend completion imaging rather than a particular technique when performing carotid endarterectomy. ReplyJournal of Vascular SurgeryVol. 43Issue 4PreviewWe thank Mr Taylor and his colleagues for their interest in our article and appreciate both their taking the time to address this important correspondence and their point of view on this topic. We would like to respond to the several comments they have made. Full-Text PDF Open Archive" @default.
• W2103160695 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2103160695 creator A5002532150 @default.
• W2103160695 creator A5035549040 @default.
• W2103160695 creator A5089498834 @default.
• W2103160695 date "2006-04-01" @default.
• W2103160695 modified "2023-09-30" @default.
• W2103160695 title "Regarding: “Patching versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy”" @default.
• W2103160695 cites W2012991036 @default.
• W2103160695 cites W2064787108 @default.
• W2103160695 cites W2092052423 @default.
• W2103160695 cites W2128269203 @default.
• W2103160695 cites W2168415169 @default.
• W2103160695 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2005.12.048" @default.
• W2103160695 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16616256" @default.
• W2103160695 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2103160695 type Work @default.
• W2103160695 sameAs 2103160695 @default.
• W2103160695 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2103160695 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2103160695 hasAuthorship W2103160695A5002532150 @default.
• W2103160695 hasAuthorship W2103160695A5035549040 @default.
• W2103160695 hasAuthorship W2103160695A5089498834 @default.
• W2103160695 hasBestOaLocation W21031606951 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConcept C146834321 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConcept C2779745121 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConcept C2780007028 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConcept C2781068581 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConceptScore W2103160695C126322002 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConceptScore W2103160695C141071460 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConceptScore W2103160695C146834321 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConceptScore W2103160695C162324750 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConceptScore W2103160695C2779745121 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConceptScore W2103160695C2780007028 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConceptScore W2103160695C2781068581 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConceptScore W2103160695C34447519 @default.
• W2103160695 hasConceptScore W2103160695C71924100 @default.
• W2103160695 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2103160695 hasLocation W21031606951 @default.
• W2103160695 hasLocation W21031606952 @default.
• W2103160695 hasOpenAccess W2103160695 @default.
• W2103160695 hasPrimaryLocation W21031606951 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W1545803792 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W2141039553 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W2299824099 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W2318928928 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W2346236911 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W2350451929 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W2368216885 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W2374372804 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W2391920897 @default.
• W2103160695 hasRelatedWork W2414762393 @default.
• W2103160695 hasVolume "43" @default.
• W2103160695 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2103160695 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2103160695 magId "2103160695" @default.
• W2103160695 workType "article" @default.