You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


Advertisement

ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | RSS | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 129 No. 9, September 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Online Only
 •  Online First Table of
Contents
  Papers
 •Online Features
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (7)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Use of Carmeda-Coated Femoral-Femoral Bypass During Repair of Traumatic Aortic Pseudoaneurysms

Joseph P. Contino, MD; David M. Follette, MD; Herbert A. Berkoff, MD; Marc E. Pollock, MD; Hugo Bogren, MD; David H. Wisner, MD

Arch Surg. 1994;129(9):933-939.


Abstract



Objective
To compare the results and outcomes of three different approaches to posttraumatic pseudoaneurysm repair: clamp and sew, left heart bypass, and the most recent approach, cardiopulmonary support using femoral-femoral bypass.

Design
Retrospective series.

Setting
A university-based, level 1 trauma center.

Patients
Forty-two consecutive patients treated for posttraumatic aortic pseudoaneurysm whose mean (±SEM) Injury Severity Score was 37± 1.7.

Intervention
Methods of repair included clamp and sew in nine patients, left heart bypass in 24 patients, and cardiopulmonary support in nine patients.

Methods
Student's t test was used to compare intraoperative blood loss, need for blood transfusion, and aortic cross-clamp time. Complications and mortality were also reviewed.

Results
Mean (±SEM) aortic cross-clamp time for clamp and sew was 28.1±3.3 minutes vs 52.5±3.7 for left heart bypass and 49.3±5.6 for cardiopulmonary support. Blood loss and the need for transfusion were comparable between groups. Complications were also comparable.

Conclusion
Femoral-femoral cardiopulmonary support is safe to use, has a very low risk of complications, and should provide protection for the spinal cord during aortic repair. We encourage a randomized prospective trial to determine if cardiopulmonary support has a significantly lower rate of paraplegia than the clamp-and-sew technique.

(Arch Surg. 1994;129:933-939)



Author Affiliations



From the Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of California—Davis Medical Center, Sacramento.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Operative Technique, Paraplegia, and Mortality After Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury
Hochheiser et al.
Arch Surg 2002;137:434-438.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Repair of Traumatic Aortic Rupture: A 25-Year Experience
Razzouk et al.
Arch Surg 2000;135:913-918.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Traumatic injury to the thoracic aorta
Gurbuz et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1999;68:1116-1117.
FULL TEXT  

Heparin-bonded circuits: clinical outcomes and costs
Mahoney
Perfusion 1998;13:192-204.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | PHYSICIAN JOBS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1994 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.