Back stabber: ladder fall causing traumatic aortic transection

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 302-303
Author(s):  
Babatunde A Yerokun ◽  
Jatin Anand ◽  
Richard L McCann ◽  
G Chad Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Spinal Fusion ◽  
Aortic Wall ◽  
Excellent Result ◽  
Aortic Injury ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Thoracic Vertebrae ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Aortic Transection

A 68-year-old man presented with back pain after falling from a ladder and was found to have anterolisthesis of thoracic vertebrae T11-12 with secondary focal aortic injury and disruption of the aortic wall. This was successfully repaired using thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) followed by spinal fusion with excellent result.

scholarly journals PC200. Midterm Outcomes After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair of Blunt Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injury

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. e228
Author(s):  
Ying Huang ◽  
Salome Weiss ◽  
Gustavo S. Oderich ◽  
Manju Kalra ◽  
Jill K. Johnstone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Injury ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Thoracic Aortic Injury

Long-Term Outcomes of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Focused on Bird Beak and Oversizing in Blunt Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injury

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 140-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marvin Ernesto García Reyes ◽  
Gabriela Gonçalves Martins ◽  
Valentín Fernández Valenzuela ◽  
José Manuel Domínguez González ◽  
Jordi Maeso Lebrun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Injury ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Thoracic Aortic Injury ◽  
Bird Beak

scholarly journals A case of paraplegia that developed 6 years after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt traumatic aortic injury

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-109
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Takahashi ◽  
Tomohisa Shoko ◽  
Fumino Taketazu ◽  
Keiichi Kuriyama ◽  
Kazuhide Yoshikawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Injury ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury

P22 PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE WITH PROPHYLACTIC THORACIC ENDOVASCULAR AORTIC REPAIR (PRO-TEAVAR) IN PATIENTS AFFECTED BY ADVANCED ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Clelia Gervasi ◽  
Carlo Alberto De Pasqual ◽  
Jacopo Weindelmayer ◽  
Luca Mezzetto ◽  
Lorenzo Scrsone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Thoracic Aorta ◽  
Aortic Wall ◽  
Tertiary Hospital ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Esophageal Fistula ◽  
Advanced Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Aortic Repair

Abstract Bleeding from the thoracic aorta is potentially fatal in patients with advanced esophageal cancer (AEC). Esophageal malignancy is the third most common cause of aorto-esophageal fistula (AEF), after thoracic aortic aneurysm and ingestion of foreign body. The involvement of aortic wall often contraindicates chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) treatment, thus reducing life expectancy of these patients. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is a well described mini-invasive technique that can be also applied for coverage of aortic lumen in case of invasion by esophageal cancer (EC). Only few cases have been published with this atypical indication. Between 2016 and 2018, in our tertiary hospital three patients affected by AEC involving the thoracic aorta were treated by means of prophylactic TEVAR (ProTEVAR). We did not observe procedure-related complications and all patients were reconsidered fit for preoperative or definitive CRT.

Chimney parallel grafts and thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: A systematic review

Vascular ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebeca Carter ◽  
Ian Jun Yan Wee ◽  
Kyle Petrie ◽  
Nicholas Syn ◽  
Andrew MTL Choong
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Aortic Injury ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Technical Success Rate ◽  
Landing Zone ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Thoracic Aortic Injury ◽  
Chimney Graft

Background Whilst the management of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury has seen a paradigm shift to an ‘endovascular first’ approach, the limitations of thoracic endovascular aortic repair remain. An inadequate proximal landing zone limits the use of thoracic aortic stent grafts and in an emergent polytrauma setting, aortic arch debranching via open surgery may not be practical or feasible. A wholly endovascular approach to debranching utilising ‘off-the-shelf’ stents and parallel graft techniques may represent a possible solution. Hence, we sought to perform a systematic review investigating the use of chimney graft techniques alongside thoracic aortic stenting in blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury. Methods We performed the systematic review in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Searches were performed on Medline (PubMed), Web of Science and Scopus to identify articles describing the use of chimney grafts in traumatic aortic transection (PROSPERO: CRD42017082549). Results The systematic search revealed 172 papers, of which 88 duplicates were removed resulting in 84 papers to screen. Based on title, abstract and full text review, six articles were included for final analysis. There were nine patients in total with an average age of 41 (three females, five males, one unspecified), all with significant polytrauma, secondary to the mechanism of injury. A variety of stents were used between centres, with techniques showing a predominance to stenting of the left subclavian artery (77%, n = 7). The technical success rate was 82%, with two (18%) cases of type 1 endoleaks, of which one resolved spontaneously. Conclusions Despite the encouraging results, this by no means provides for a firm conclusion given the small sample size. Patients should still be judiciously selected on a case-by-case basis when employing the chimney graft technique. Larger cohort studies are needed to establish these findings.

scholarly journals Celiac Artery Coverage During Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Dissection and Acute Aortic Injury Is Not Associated With Worse Outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. e96-e97
Author(s):  
Adam Tanious ◽  
Laura T. Boitano ◽  
Charles Decarlo ◽  
Young Kim ◽  
Christopher Latz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Injury ◽  
Celiac Artery ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Aortic Repair

Evaluation of EndoAnchor Aortic Wall Penetration After Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-247
Author(s):  
Andrés Reyes Valdivia ◽  
Sara Busto Suárez ◽  
África Duque Santos ◽  
Ahmad Amer Zanabili Al-Sibbai ◽  
Claudio Gandarias Zúñiga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thoracic Aorta ◽  
Aortic Wall ◽  
Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Endovascular Aortic Repair ◽  
Descending Thoracic Aorta ◽  
Aortic Repair ◽  
Type Ia ◽  
Endograft Infection ◽  
Academic Vascular Surgery

Purpose: To analyze aortic wall penetration of Heli-FX EndoAnchors after use in seal zones in the aortic arch or descending thoracic aorta during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Materials and Methods: From May 2014 to May 2019, 25 patients (mean age 70.5±10 years; 16 women) were treated with TEVAR and adjunctive use of the Heli-FX device in 3 academic vascular surgery departments. Computed tomography scans were retrospectively reviewed to determine the location [arch or descending thoracic aorta (DTA)] of the EndoAnchors and the adequacy of aortic wall penetration, defined as adequate (≥2 mm), partial (<2 mm), or inadequate wall penetration (including loss). Endoleaks, reinterventions, and mortality were assessed. Results: A total of 161 EndoAnchors were deployed (median 7 per patient, range 4–9). Twenty-two EndoAnchors were place in the arch (zones 0–2) and 139 in the DTA (zones 3–5). A larger proportion of arch deployments (27%) had suboptimal penetration compared with the DTA (6.5%; p<0.005), resulting in a 91% adequate wall penetration rate for the series overall. Three EndoAnchors were lost (and only 1 retrieved) in 3 different patients, with no additional morbidity; thus, an overall deployment success rate of 88% was achieved. At a mean follow-up of 16.6±14 months, 4 patients required 5 (successful) reinterventions, including one for a type Ia endoleak treated with chimney TEVAR. One patient died 10 months after treatment due to endograft infection, without an opportunity for surgical correction. Conclusion: EndoAnchors have a higher risk of maldeployment in the arch, though this may be attributable to the small learning curve experience in this location. The best aortic wall penetration for this series was in the DTA, where EndoAnchors proved useful for distal endograft fixation during TEVAR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document