Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:: Iatrogenic arterial injury is an uncommon but recognized complication of posterior spinal surgery. The spectrum of injuries includes vessel perforation leading to hemorrhage, delayed pseudoaneurysm formation, and threatened perforation by screw impingement on arterial vessels. Repair of these injuries traditionally involved open direct vessel repair or graft placement, which can be associated with significant morbidity. METHODS:: We identified five cases of iatrogenic arterial injury during or after posterior spinal surgery between July 2004 and August 2009 and describe the endovascular treatment of these five patients. RESULTS:: In two patients, intraoperative arterial bleeding was encountered during posterior spinal surgery. The posterior wounds were packed, temporarily closed, and the patients were placed supine. Angiography in both patients demonstrated arterial injury necessitating repair. Covered stent grafts were deployed through femoral cutdowns to exclude the areas of injury. In three additional patients, postoperative computed tomography imaging demonstrated pedicle screws abutting or penetrating the thoracic or abdominal aorta. In all three patients, angiography or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), or both, confirmed indention or perforation of the aorta by the screw. Aortic stent graft cuffs were deployed through femoral cutdowns to cover the area of aortic contact before hardware removal. All five patients did well and were discharged home in good condition. CONCLUSIONS:: Endovascular repair of arterial injuries occurring during posterior spine procedures is feasible and can offer a safe and less invasive alternative to open repair

In 2011, five independent, international guideline committees reported their recommendations for the management of symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis. These included the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, the Society for Vascular Surgery, the European Society of Cardiology, the Australasian, and the UK National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. As the recommendations of these five guideline committees were based on the same published literature, it would be expected that they are similar, at least to a large extent. Surprisingly, there were considerable differences between the five guidelines regarding the management of both symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid patients. The differences in the recommendations between the five Guideline Committees are analyzed and discussed.

The diagnosis and treatment of vascular disease is becoming increasingly complex and involves many specialties. The VEITHsymposium focuses on all important aspects of vascular disease management and brings together vascular surgeons, cardiologists, interventional radiologists and all other relevant specialists to provide a current overview of important developments, new technologies, controversies and new horizons in the field. This 5-day meeting has several special components on its first day, followed by plenary sessions dealing with all important aspects of vascular disease and its treatment. 2012 Future Medicine Ltd

The recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommended carotid artery stenting (CAS) as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for symptomatic patients. This and the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST) form the basis for seeking more liberalized indications and reimbursement for CAS. For the years 2005-2007, >130,000 carotid interventions/year were performed, 88.6% of which were CEAs and 11.4% were CAS. For the same years, each CAS procedure had on average $12,000-$13,500 more expensive mean total hospital charges than each CEA. If the percentages of CAS and CEA had been equal (ie, 50% CAS and 50% CEA), this would translate into an additional $2,000,000,000 in charges for these 3 years. It seems unreasonable to approve enhanced reimbursement for CAS at this time, especially since the large incremental costs would go to support CAS procedures that are inferior in most symptomatic patients and possibly unnecessary in most asymptomatic patients.