No abstract

Six years after randomization, endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar rates of survival. The rate of secondary interventions was significantly higher for endovascular repair. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00421330.)

Additional HBOT did not significantly improve complete wound healing or limb salvage in patients with diabetes and lower-limb ischemia.

The pooled estimate of total mortality from rAAA is very high, although it has declined over the years. Most patients die outside hospital, and there is no surgical intervention in a considerable number of those who survive to reach hospital.

Thoracic endograft collapse is an exceedingly rare event. In this series, endoprosthesis collapse occurred in patients who were treated outside the manufacturer's instructions for use for minimum required aortic diameter. Although distal aortic diameter and minimum intragraft aortic diameter predicted collapse, other variables may also influence this complication but were not significant owing to potential type II statistical errors. In the future, caution should be exercised when contemplating TEVAR in patients with small (<23 mm) aortic diameters.

This trial did not show a significant difference in combined death and severe complications between EVAR and OR. Mortality for OR both in randomized patients and in cohort patients was lower than anticipated, which may be explained by optimization of logistics, preoperative CT imaging, and centralization of care in centers of expertise.

Collapse of stent-grafts can occur after treatment for traumatic aortic ruptures; endovascular methods can be used to restore a satisfactory luminal contour.

BackgroundMultiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision‐making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM‐related outcomes.MethodsThis was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently.ResultsThirty‐two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty‐six per cent of 13 176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient‐ or surgeon‐driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision‐making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty‐five different SDM‐related outcomes were reported.ConclusionAt present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics.