A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Endovascular Management of Post-Irradiated Carotid Blowout Syndrome in Patients with Lower Neck Cancers. | LitMetric

Endovascular Management of Post-Irradiated Carotid Blowout Syndrome in Patients with Lower Neck Cancers.

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg

Department of Radiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address:

Published: May 2024


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Objective: Lower neck cancers (LNCs) include specific tumour types and have some different vascular supply or collaterals from other head and neck cancers. This prospective study evaluated the outcome of endovascular management of post-irradiated carotid blowout syndrome (PCBS) in patients with LNC by comparing reconstructive management (RE) and deconstructive management (DE).

Methods: This was a single centre, prospective cohort study. Patients with LNC complicated by PCBS between 2015 and 2021 were enrolled for RE or DE. RE was performed by stent graft placement covering the pathological lesion and preventive external carotid artery (ECA) embolisation without balloon test occlusion (BTO). DE was performed after successful BTO by permanent coil or adhesive agent embolisation of the internal carotid artery (ICA) and ECA to common carotid artery, or ICA occlusion alone if the pathological lesion was ICA only. Cross occlusion included the proximal and distal ends of the pathological lesion in all patients. Re-bleeding events, haemostatic period, and neurological complications were evaluated.

Results: Fifty-nine patients (mean age 58.5 years; 56 male) were enrolled, including 28 patients undergoing RE and 31 patients undergoing DE. Three patients originally grouped to DE were transferred to RE owing to failed BTO. The results of RE vs. DE were as follows: rebleeding events, 13/28 (46%) vs. 10/31 (32%) (p = .27); haemostatic period, 9.4 ± 14.0 months vs. 14.2 ± 27.8 months (p = .59); neurological complication, 4/28 (14%) vs. 5/31 (16%) (p = .84); and survival time, 11.8 ± 14.6 months vs. 15.1 ± 27.5 months (p = .61).

Conclusion: No difference in rebleeding risk or neurological complications was observed between the DE and RE groups. RE could be used as a potential routine treatment for PCBS in patients with LNC.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.12.036DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

neck cancers
12
patients lnc
12
pathological lesion
12
carotid artery
12
patients
9
endovascular management
8
management post-irradiated
8
post-irradiated carotid
8
carotid blowout
8
blowout syndrome
8

Similar Publications