Comparing Mobile C-Arm with a Hybrid Operating Room for Imaging in Fenestrated Stent-Graft Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Yazar, Ozan; Mees, Barend; Provoost, A.-L.; Ketting, Shirley; Haan, Michiel W. de; Schurink, Geert Willem H.

doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2020.04.002

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have demonstrated that both infrarenal and fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be performed in either setting with minimal disadvantages, except for radiation dosage. 8,9 Though it is important to consider that imaging through the head and neck is associated with much lower levels of radiation compared to the trunk. A different investigation showed that lower-limb revascularization has equivalent technical success using either fixed or mobile modalities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixed compared to mobile imaging arms for transcarotid artery revascularization

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) is a new surgical option for carotid artery stenosis. While this procedure is optimally performed in hybrid operating rooms (OR), it is currently unclear whether it could be safely performed using portable, C-arm fluoroscopy with equivalent results. The aim of this study is to determine whether there are differences in intraoperative and perioperative outcomes stratified by imaging modality. Methods A retrospective review of all TCAR procedures attempted within our health system was performed, capturing all cases between September 2017 and May 2022. Procedures were divided into 2 cohorts, based on whether they were performed in a hybrid OR or with portable, C-arm in a standard OR. Patient demographics, intraoperative results, and postoperative outcomes were compared using univariate strategies. Results A total of 503 patients were included for review, of which 422 were performed in a hybrid OR (84%) and 81 were performed using a portable C-arm (16%). Intraoperatively, an increased estimated blood loss (47.7 ± 54.7 vs 26.1 ± 26.9 mLs, p < 0.01) and operative time was found in the cases performed in a hybrid OR. However, the fluoroscopy time was lower (4.0 ± 2.6 vs 5.2 ± 5.8 min, p = 0.01) in the setting of advanced intraoperative imaging. Postoperatively, we found no differences with respect to myocardial infarction (0.2% vs. 0%, p > 0.99), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.96), or death (0.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.15) between groups. Conclusions While there are some intraoperative variabilities between TCAR performed in hybrid versus standard ORs, postoperative outcomes are comparable. Therefore, the lack of a hybrid room should not be a deterrent to the adoption of TCAR.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%