RESUMO
ABSTRACT Introduction: The aim of our study was to compare the primary closure (PRC) and patch angioplasty closure (PAC) of carotid artery following carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Methods: Data of patients who underwent CEA in the period from January 2005 to June 2020 were reviewed through files. Demographic characteristics, information about the operation, and postoperative follow-up outcomes of the patients were compared. Results: Of the 144 CEA cases included in the study, PRC and PAC were applied to 62 (43.7%) and 82 (56.3%) patients, respectively, for the carotid artery closure. Duration of surgery and carotid artery clamping time were not different between the PRC and PAC groups (106.73±17.13 minutes vs. 110.48±20.67 minutes, P=0.635; 24.25±11.56 minutes vs. 25.19±8.99 minutes, P=0.351, respectively). Postoperative respiratory impairment was more common in the PRC group (P=0.012); however, nerve injuries (P=0.254), surgical wound hematomas (P=0.605), surgical site infections (P=0.679), and mortality (P=0.812) were not significantly different between the groups. During the mean patient follow-up time of 26.13±19.32 months, restenosis was more common in the PRC group than in the PAC group (n=26, 41.9% vs. n=4, 4.9%, respectively; P=0.003). Frequencies of stroke (n=4, 2.8% vs. n=2, 2.4%, respectively; P=0.679), transient ischemic attacks (n=2, 1.4% vs. n=0, 0%, respectively; P=0.431), and mortality (n=4, 6.5% vs. n=4, 4.9%, respectively; P=0.580) were not significantly different between the PRC and PAC groups. Conclusion: We are of the opinion that the PAC method is effective and safe for carotid artery closure in patients undergoing CEA.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The aim of our study was to compare the primary closure (PRC) and patch angioplasty closure (PAC) of carotid artery following carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: Data of patients who underwent CEA in the period from January 2005 to June 2020 were reviewed through files. Demographic characteristics, information about the operation, and postoperative follow-up outcomes of the patients were compared. RESULTS: Of the 144 CEA cases included in the study, PRC and PAC were applied to 62 (43.7%) and 82 (56.3%) patients, respectively, for the carotid artery closure. Duration of surgery and carotid artery clamping time were not different between the PRC and PAC groups (106.73±17.13 minutes vs. 110.48±20.67 minutes, P=0.635; 24.25±11.56 minutes vs. 25.19±8.99 minutes, P=0.351, respectively). Postoperative respiratory impairment was more common in the PRC group (P=0.012); however, nerve injuries (P=0.254), surgical wound hematomas (P=0.605), surgical site infections (P=0.679), and mortality (P=0.812) were not significantly different between the groups. During the mean patient follow-up time of 26.13±19.32 months, restenosis was more common in the PRC group than in the PAC group (n=26, 41.9% vs. n=4, 4.9%, respectively; P=0.003). Frequencies of stroke (n=4, 2.8% vs. n=2, 2.4%, respectively; P=0.679), transient ischemic attacks (n=2, 1.4% vs. n=0, 0%, respectively; P=0.431), and mortality (n=4, 6.5% vs. n=4, 4.9%, respectively; P=0.580) were not significantly different between the PRC and PAC groups. CONCLUSION: We are of the opinion that the PAC method is effective and safe for carotid artery closure in patients undergoing CEA.