English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to compare early results of the modified eversion carotid endarterectomy technique with the conventional carotid endarterectomy technique. The modified eversion carotid endarterectomy technique consisted of a longitudinal arteriotomy that was begun from the common carotid artery proximally to the origin of external carotid artery. We also avoided applying a carotid shunt during surgery in both techniques. Methods: Each patient was evaluated for coronary artery stenosis and valve replacement indications. Diagnosis of significant coronary artery stenosis or valve disease directed us to a combination of CEA and cardiac surgery (CABG/Valvular). We generally had a tendency to perform these two surgical procedures separately. Patients which had surgery for both at the same session were excluded in this study. As a result, our study included 120 patients and 137 carotid interventions. We performed the modified eversion carotid endarterectomy technique in 61 patients (68 carotid interventions) (Group A) and the conventional CEA technique in 59 patients (69 carotid interventions) (Group B). At follow-up, the patients were evaluated by physical examination and color Doppler USG. Results: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic data. Statistically significant difference was observed in one operative parameter between Group A and Group B; patchplasty requirements during surgery (12 carotid interventions in group B and 4 carotid interventions in group A, p = 0.036). We recorded temporary tongue deviation in five cases, facial asymmetry in eight cases, hoarseness in four cases, neurocognitive impairment in three cases and transient neurologic in two cases with no significant difference between the groups. There was in one case of permanent neurologic deficit (1 in group B). There were two postoperative deaths (1 in group A and 1 in group B). The death in group A occurred because of subarachnoid haemorrhage and the death in group B occurred because of myocardial infarction. After 6 month follow-up, no restenosis occurred in group A. Restenosis occurred in three patients of group B. Conclusion: The modified eversion technique for carotid endarterectomy decrease the incidence of patchplasty applications and postoperative restenosis by avoiding internal carotid artery manipulation and sewing. Besides, it is easy and possible to remove plaques completely from internal carotid artery via the modified arteriotomy line.

Comparison of the Modified Eversion Carotid Endarterectomy Technique with the Conventional Carotid Endarterectomy Technique: Early Results