The result of this study affirms the safety of microsurgical treatment strategies, so that sufficient tumor control can be achieved with minimal morbidity and satisfying functional results in most cases.

Sufficient tumor control can be achieved with minimal morbidity and satisfying functional results.

Purpose Consensus on optimal imaging procedure for vascular graft/endograft infection (VGEI) is still lacking and the choice of a diagnostic test is often based on the experience of single centres. This document provides evidence-based recommendations aiming at defining which imaging modality may be preferred in different clinical settings and post-surgical time window. Methods This working group includes 6 nuclear medicine physicians appointed by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine, 4 vascular surgeons, and 2 radiologists. Vascular surgeons formulated 5 clinical questions that were converted into 10 statements and addressed through a systematic analysis of available literature by using PICOs (Population/problem–Intervention/Indicator–Comparator–Outcome) strategy. Each consensus statement was scored for level of evidence and for recommendation grade, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine criteria. Results Sixty-six articles, published from January 2000 up to December 2021, were analysed and used for evidence-based recommendations. Conclusion Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is the first-line imaging modality in suspected VGEI but nuclear medicine modalities are often needed to confirm or exclude the infection. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) with 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose ([18F]FDG) has very high negative predictive value but it should be performed preferably at least 4 months after surgery to avoid false positive results. Radiolabelled white blood cell (WBC) scintigraphy, given its high diagnostic accuracy, can be performed at any time after surgery. Preamble The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) is a professional no-profit medical association that facilitates communication worldwide between individuals pursuing clinical and research excellence in nuclear medicine. The EANM was founded in 1985. EANM members are physicians, technologists, and scientists specializing in the research and practice of nuclear medicine. The EANM will periodically define new guidelines for nuclear medicine practice to help advance the science of nuclear medicine and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the world. Existing practice guidelines will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner, if indicated. Each practice guideline, representing a policy statement by the EANM, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has been subjected to extensive review. The EANM recognizes that the safe and effective use of diagnostic nuclear medicine imaging requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published practice guideline by those entities not providing these services is not authorized. These guidelines are an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate care for patients. They are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice and are not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care. For these reasons and those set forth below, the EANM suggests caution against the use of the current consensus document in litigation in which the clinical decisions of a practitioner are called into question. The ultimate judgement regarding the propriety of any specific procedure or course of action must be made by the physician or medical physicist in the light of all the circumstances presented. Thus, there is no implication that an approach differing from the consensus document, standing alone, is below the standard of care. To the contrary, a conscientious practitioner may responsibly adopt a course of action different from that set forth in the consensus document when, in the reasonable judgement of the practitioner, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology subsequent to publication of the consensus document. The practice of medicine includes both the art and the science of the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation, and treatment of disease. The variety and complexity of human conditions make it impossible to always reach the most appropriate diagnosis or to predict with certainty a particular response to treatment. Therefore, it should be recognized that adherence to this consensus document will not ensure an accurate diagnosis or a successful outcome. All that should be expected is that the practitioner will follow a reasonable course of action based on current knowledge, available resources, and the needs of the patient, to deliver effective and safe medical care. The sole purpose of this consensus document is to assist practitioners in achieving this objective.

The reported incidence of incisional hernia following repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) via midline laparotomy is up to 69%. This prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was conducted at eleven hospitals in Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older undergoing elective AAA-repair via midline incision were randomly assigned using a computer-generated randomisation sequence to one of three groups for fascial closure: with long-term absorbable suture (MonoPlus®, group I), long-term absorbable suture and onlay mesh reinforcement (group II) or extra long-term absorbable suture (MonoMax®, group III). The primary endpoint was the incidence of incisional hernia within 24 months of follow-up, analysed by intention to treat. Physicians conducting the postoperative visits and the patients were blinded. Between February 2011 and July 2013, 104 patients (69.8 ± 7.7 years) were randomised, 99 of them received a study intervention. The rate of incisional hernia within 24 months was not significantly reduced with onlay mesh augmentation compared to primary suture (p = 0.290). Furthermore, the rate of incisional hernia did not differ significantly between fascial closure with slow and extra long-term absorbable suture (p = 0.111). Serious adverse events related to study intervention occurred in five patients (5.1%) from treatment groups II and III. Wound healing disorders were more frequently seen after onlay mesh implantation on the day of discharge (p = 0.010) and three (p = 0.009) and six (p = 0.023) months postoperatively. The existing evidence on prophylactic mesh augmentation in patients undergoing AAA-repair via midline laparotomy probably needs critical review. As the implementation of new RCTs is considered difficult due to the increasing number of endovascular AAA treated, registry studies could help to collect and evaluate data in cases of open AAA-repair. Comparisons between prophylactic mesh implantation and the small bite technique are also required. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01353443. Funding Sources: Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany.

Objective This in vitro study investigates the antimicrobial efficacy of impregnation of commercially available aortic endografts (EG) with rifampicin (RIF) and nanocolloidal silver. Methods Endografts were flushed with 50 mL of RIF 600 mg, 70 mL of a silver-based aqueous solution (AG), or 50 mL of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) over 15 minutes. Endografts were then retrieved from the sheath and cut in 1 × 1 cm sized graft units (n = 80 of each impregnation), which were then incubated for 1 hour separately with inoculates containing 10 6 or 10 3 bacteria per milliliter (bact/mL) of each of the following bacteria: Staphylococcus epidermidis, Escherichia coli, multisensitive Staphylococcus aureus , and Pseudomonas aeruginosa . After sonication of the graft units, bacterial counts were measured by plating out twice the sonication solution on Mueller-Hinton plates. Results RIF showed a statistically significant decrease of colony forming units per milliliter for all four bacterial strains in both concentrations compared with PBS and AG, except for 10 3 bact/mL of E coli . AG showed a significant decrease of colony forming units per milliliter compared with PBS only for 10 6 bact/mL of E coli and was statistically significantly inferior to RIF for all four bacterial strains in both concentrations with the exception of E coli at a concentration of 10 3 bact/mL. Conclusions This in vitro study demonstrated infectivity resistance of aortic EG after flushing with RIF. Moreover, the feasibility of flushing aortic EG with a new silver-based agent could be demonstrated, but without statistically significant antimicrobial efficacy compared with native EG.

No abstract

Objectives: To study the outcome of endovascular treatment of aortic pathologies in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS) at a single institution. Methods: Consecutive MFS patients who underwent endovascular repair or hybrid procedures for aortic pathologies from January 2010 to May 2020 were identified. Several endovascular and hybrid strategies have been used. Technical success, short- and mid-term survival, complications, and re-interventions were retrospectively analyzed. Results: During the study period, 24 patients with MFS (median age, 48 [13–78] years; 58% males) were treated. Indications for intervention were chronic aortic dissection with aneurysm degeneration in 16 patients (67%), acute type B aortic dissection in 4 patients (17%), aortic aneurysm without any dissection in 3 patients (13%), and aortic intramural hematoma in 1 patient (4%). Most patients were asymptomatic (83%), three (13%) were symptomatic and one (4%) had a contained rupture. The median aneurysm diameter was 56 (35–86) mm. Hybrid procedures were performed in 7 (29%) patients. Thoracic endovascular repair was performed in 12 (50%) patients, a fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair in 4 (17%) patients, and placement of an iliac artery stent-graft in 1 (4%) patient. Procedures were staged in 12 (50%) patients. Technical success was achieved in all patients. The median intensive care unit stay was 6 (range, 1–30) days, and the median hospital stay was 23 (range, 3–112) days. Early mortality was reported in 1 (4%) patient. Wound infection was seen in 7 (29%) patients and gastrointestinal complications in 3 (13%) patients. The median follow-up was 42 (range, 1–127) months. The cumulative survival rate was 87% at 24 months. The cumulative freedom from re-intervention was 77% at 12 months. Conclusions: Endovascular treatment of aortic pathologies in patients with MFS appears feasible with acceptable early and mid-term outcomes in terms of mortality and re-intervention rates. Endovascular therapy plays an increasing role in MFS patients with aortic pathology.

No abstract