Search

Anatomic compression of the left renal vein in the angle between the aorta and superior mesenteric artery may be asymptomatic or may result in symptoms, including flank pain, hematuria, or pelvic pain and/or congestion. Patients can be referred to a vascular surgeon due to symptoms and/or radiologic findings. Because symptoms of nutcracker syndrome can be vague and/or nondiagnostic, careful evaluation, assessment, and counseling with patients are required before undertaking intervention, which is often an open surgical procedure. The definitive diagnosis is ideally confirmed with diagnostic venography, including pressure measurements from the left renal vein and inferior vena cava. The optimal treatment includes open decompression of the left renal vein with renal vein transposition or gonadal vein transposition, with or without concomitant management of pelvic varicosities if symptomatic. Because most patients with nutcracker syndrome are young, long-term follow-up with scheduled ultrasound examinations should be maintained., Competing Interests: None., (© 2023 The Author.)

This article provides an overview of acute mesenteric ischemia, chronic mesenteric ischemia, and visceral aneurysms, with a focus on treatment. Acute mesenteric ischemia can be a challenging diagnosis. Early recognition and adequate revascularization are key to patient outcomes. Chronic mesenteric ischemia is a more insidious process, typically caused by atherosclerosis. Various options for revascularization exist, which must be tailored to each patient. Visceral aneurysms are rare and the natural history is not well defined. However, given the risk of rupture and high mortality, treatment may be complex., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this article, we compare and contrast methods of reviewing, summarizing, and synthesizing the literature, including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and narrative reviews. Review articles are essential to help investigators wade through the plethora of exponentially growing medical literature. In the era of evidence-based medicine, a systematic approach is required. A systematic review is a formalized method to address a specific clinical question by analyzing the breadth of published literature while minimizing bias. Systematic reviews are designed to answer narrow clinical questions in the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) format. Alternatively, scoping reviews use a similar systematic approach to a literature search in order to determine the breadth and depth of knowledge on a topic; to clarify definitions, concepts, and themes; or sometimes as a precursor to a systematic review or hypothesis generator to guide future research. However, scoping reviews are less constrained by a priori decisions about which interventions, controls, and outcomes may be of interest. Traditional narrative reviews still have a role in informing practice and guiding research, particularly when there is a paucity of high-quality evidence on a topic., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Hybrid debranching repair of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms was initially designed as a better alternative to standard open repair, addressing the limitations of endovascular repair involving the visceral aorta. We reviewed the collective outcomes of hybrid debranching repairs using extra-anatomic, open surgical debranching of the renal-mesenteric arteries, followed by endovascular aortic stenting., Methods: Data from patients who underwent hybrid repair in 14 North American institutions during 10 years were retrospectively reviewed. Society of Vascular Surgery scores were used to assess comorbidity risk. Early and late outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, reintervention, and patency were analyzed., Results: A total of 208 patients (118 male; mean age, 71±8 years old) were treated by hybrid repair with extraanatomic reconstruction of 657 renal and mesenteric arteries (mean 3.2 vessels/patient). Mean aneurysm diameter was 6.6±1.3 cm. Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were identified in 163 (78%) patients and pararenal aneurysms in 45 (22%). A single-stage repair was performed in 92 (44%) patients. The iliac arteries were the most common source of inflow (n=132; 63%), and most (n=150; 72%) had 3 or more bypasses. There were 30 (14%) early deaths, ranging widely across sites (0%-21%). A Society of Vascular Surgery comorbidity score >15 was the primary predictor of early mortality ( P <0.01), whereas mortality was 3% in a score ≤9. Early complications occurred in 140 (73%) patients and included respiratory complications in 45 patients (22%) and spinal cord ischemia in 22 (11%), of whom 10 (45%) fully recovered. At 5 years, survival was 61±5%, primary graft patency was 90±2%, and secondary patency was 93±2%. The most significant predictor of late mortality was renal insufficiency ( P <0.0001)., Conclusions: Mortality after hybrid repair and visceral debranching is highly variable by center, but strongly affected by preoperative comorbidities and the centers' experience with the technique. With excellent graft patency at 5 years, the outcomes of hybrid repair done at centers of excellence and in carefully selected patients may be comparable (or better) than traditional open or even totally endovascular approaches. However, in patients already considered as high-risk for surgery, it may not offer better outcomes.

Objectives: To assess the ability of the current classification system for popliteal entrapment syndrome to accurately capture all patients, and if not, to design an all-inclusive new classification., Methods: Retrospective review of all interventions performed for popliteal entrapment syndrome between 1994 and 2013 at our institution was performed. Preoperative imaging and intraoperative findings were used to establish the compressive morphology of popliteal entrapment syndrome. Patients were categorized, when possible, into six types of the current classification system (Rich classification, modified by Levien) and into seven types of a new classification., Results: Sixty-seven limbs of 49 patients were operated on for unilateral (31) or bilateral (18) popliteal entrapment syndrome. The current classification system captured the anatomy of only 43 (64%) of 67 limbs with popliteal entrapment syndrome. Compressive morphologies without a defined class included aberrant insertion of the lateral head of gastrocnemius muscle, muscle slip originating from the lateral head of gastrocnemius or hamstrings, hypertrophied hamstring muscle, abnormal fibrous bands, perivascular connective tissue, and prominent lateral femoral condyle. The new classification captured 100% of the limbs with popliteal entrapment syndrome., Conclusions: Current classification of popliteal entrapment syndrome is inadequate as more than one-third of the cases reviewed fell outside of the standard classification system. Consideration of a more inclusive new anatomic classification system is warranted.

Management of carotid bifurcation stenosis in stroke prevention has been the subject of extensive investigations, including multiple randomized controlled trials. The proper treatment of patients with carotid bifurcation disease is of major interest to vascular surgeons and other vascular specialists. In 2011, the Society for Vascular Surgery published guidelines for the treatment of carotid artery disease. At the time, several randomized trials, comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS), were reported. Since the 2011 guidelines, several studies and a few systematic reviews comparing CEA and CAS have been reported, and the role of medical management has been reemphasized. In the present publication, we have updated and expanded on the 2011 guidelines with specific emphasis on five areas: (1) is CEA recommended over maximal medical therapy for low-risk patients; (2) is CEA recommended over transfemoral CAS for low surgical risk patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of >50%; (3) the timing of carotid intervention for patients presenting with acute stroke; (4) screening for carotid artery stenosis in asymptomatic patients; and (5) the optimal sequence of intervention for patients with combined carotid and coronary artery disease. A separate implementation document will address other important clinical issues in extracranial cerebrovascular disease. Recommendations are made using the GRADE (grades of recommendation assessment, development, and evaluation) approach, as was used for other Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. The committee recommends CEA as the first-line treatment for symptomatic low-risk surgical patients with stenosis of 50% to 99% and asymptomatic patients with stenosis of 70% to 99%. The perioperative risk of stroke and death in asymptomatic patients must be <3% to ensure benefit for the patient. In patients with recent stable stroke (modified Rankin scale score, 0-2), carotid revascularization is considered appropriate for symptomatic patients with >50% stenosis and should be performed as soon as the patient is neurologically stable after 48 hours but definitely <14 days after symptom onset. In the general population, screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in patients without cerebrovascular symptoms or significant risk factors for carotid artery disease is not recommended. In selected asymptomatic patients with an increased risk of carotid stenosis, we suggest screening for clinically asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis as long as the patients would potentially be fit for and willing to consider carotid intervention if significant stenosis is discovered. For patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis of 50% to 99%, who require both CEA and coronary artery bypass grafting, we suggest CEA before, or concomitant with, coronary artery bypass grafting to potentially reduce the risk of stroke and stroke/death. The sequencing of the intervention depends on the clinical presentation and institutional experience., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)