Abstract:

Introduction: about 200 million people in the world suffer from ischemia of lower limbs. This pathology occupies a large part in the structure of all lesions of the vascular bed. Most patients with lesions of lower limb arteries have critical lower limb ischemia (CLLI), which is characterized by pain at rest and/or trophic lesions of foot. CLLI is the final stage of lower limb vascular bed lesion and is always accompanied by a deterioration in the quality of life, high morbidity and mortality. The only effective way to treat this pathology is revascularization, however, the current lack of clinical data does not allow us to determine the optimal strategy in treatment of this pathology.

Aim: was to determine advantages and disadvantages of using various methods of lower limb revascularization.

Material and methods: literature data from information aggregators Cyberleninka, Pubmed and MEDLINE on this topic, published in Russian and English for the period from 2010 to 2021, were selected for analysis. Articles written in German and French were included in the study in case of available translation to English. Termins as an inclusion criteria: critical limb ischaemia, ischaemic pain, tissue loss, gangrene, hybrid intervention, open surgical recanalization, endovascular revascularization, claudication, stenosis.

Results: it is determined that revascularization by open surgery showed better long-term results, however, it cannot be recommended for patients with severe comorbid diseases and defeat of lower limb and foot arteries, while endovascular revascularization techniques allow the procedure to be performed in almost all patients, regardless of the severity of their somatic status, however, extended multilevel lesions are poorly amenable to this method of treatment, and also have a relatively lower patency in the long-term period. Hybrid interventions combine advantages of both methods, however, they have high requirements for the equipment of the medical institution and the qualifications of the staff. In addition, hybrid methods are also more dangerous for the patient in comparison with revascularization by endovascular methods.

Abstract:

Authors present their first 3 cases of thoracoabdominal aneurysm hybrid repair. Endovascular procedure and open surgery were used either simultaneously, or as the steps of reconstruction.

References

1.           Crawford E.S., DeNatale R.W. Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm: Observations regarding the natural course of disease. J. Vasc. Surg. 1986; 3: 578.

2.           Nienaber C.A., Eagle K.A. Aortic dissection: new frontiers in diagnosis and management: part I: from etiology to diagnostic strategies. Circulation. 2003; 108 (5): 628-635.

3.           Kouchoukos N.T., Dougenis D. Surgery of the thoracic aorta. N. Engl. J. Med.  1997; 336: 1876-1888.

4.           Meszaros I. et al. Epidemiology and clinicopathology of aortic dissection.   Chest. 2000;117: 1271-1278.

5.           Coady M.A. et al. Surgical intervention criteria for thoracic aortic aneurysms. A study of growth rates and complications. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1999; 67: 1922.

6.           Elefteriades J.A. Natural history of thoracic aortic aneurysms. Indications for surgery and surgical versus nonsurgical risks. Ann. Tho-rac.Surg. 2002; 74: 1877.

7.           Lobato A.C., Puech-Leao P. Predictive factors for rupture of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.J. Vasc. Surg. 1998; 27: 446.

8.           Svensson L.G. et al. Experience with 1509 patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic operations.J. Vasc. Surg. 1993 ;17 (2): 357-370.

9.           Bavaria J. et al. Retrograde cerebral and distal aortic perfusion during ascending and thoracoabdominal aortic operations. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1995; 60 (2): 345-353.

10.       Белов Ю. В., Хамитов Ф. Ф., Генс А. П., Степаненко А. Б. Защита спинного мозга и внутренних органов в реконструктивнойхирургии аневризм нисходящего грудного и торакоабдоминального отделов аорты. Ангиология и сосудистая хирургия. 2001; 7 (4):85-95.

11.       Hagan P.G. et al. The International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD): new insights into an old disease.JAMA. 2000; 283: 897-903.

12.       FannJ.I. et al. Surgical management of aortic dissection during a 30"year   period. Circulation. 1995; 92 (2): 113-121.

13.       Dake M.D. et al. Endovascular stent-graft placement for the treatment of aortic dissection. New. Eng.J. Med. 1999; 340: 1546-1552.

14.       Buth J. et al. Neurologic complications associated with endovascular repair of thoracic aortic pathology: Incidence and risk factors. Аstudy from the European сollaborators on stent-graft techniques for aortic aneurysm repair  (EUROSTAR)  registry. J.   Vasc.  Surg. 2007; 46 (6): 1103-1111.

15.       Svensson L.G. et al. Experience with 1509 patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic operations.J. Vasc. Surg. 1993; 17: 357-370.

16.       Safi H.J. et al.  Distal aortic perfusion and cerebrospinal fluid drainage for thoracoabdominal and descending thoracic aortic repair.        Ten years of organ protection. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2003; 238: 372-380.

17.       Chiesa R. et al. Spinal   cord   ischemia after elective stent-graft repair of the thoracic aorta. J. Vasc. Surg. 2005; 42: 11-17.

18.       Criado F.J., Clark N.S., Barnatan M.F. Stent graft repair in the aortic arch and descending thoracic aorta: A 4-year experience. J. Vasc. Surg. 2002; 36: 1121-1128.

19.       Najibi S. et al. Endoluminal versus open treatment of descending thoracic     aortic aneurysms.J. Vasc. Surg. 2002; 36: 732-737.

20.       Greenberg R.K. et al. Zenith AAA endovascular graft. Intermediate-term results of the US multicenter  trial. J. Vasc. Surg. 2004; 39: 1209-1218.