Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_905_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Prologue to First Edition
- •Prologue to Second Edition
- •Further Reading
- •Contents
- •Introduction
- •Editor and Contributors
- •About the Editor
- •Contributors
- •References
- •Conclusion
- •3: Surgical Decision-Making: More Questions than Answers?
- •Introduction
- •Intraoperative Decision-Making
- •Overlooked Behaviors Impacting Surgical Decision-making Outcomes
- •The Never Event
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Personality Characteristics
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Primum Non Nocere
- •The Never Event
- •Sleep
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Situation Awareness, Perception, Comprehension, Projection
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Augmented Reality During Surgery
- •Overall Surgical Complications
- •Surgical Risk Models
- •The MySurgeryRisk Platform
- •Sepsis
- •Pancreatic Fistula
- •Hepatic Surgery
- •Transplant
- •Frailty
- •Disposition
- •Anesthesia
- •Pain Management
- •Cancer Treatment
- •Gastric Cancer
- •Detecting Preinvasive Occult Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma
- •Colorectal Cancer
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Technological Adjuncts
- •Perioperative Monitoring
- •Functional Coagulation Assay Driven Resuscitation
- •Acute Kidney Injury
- •Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
- •Bedside Laparotomy
- •Nutritional Considerations
- •Patient Centered Care Goals
- •Summary
- •References
- •Postinjury Multiple Organ Failure (MOF)
- •Decision-Making Around Interventions
- •Interventional Radiology
- •Surgery
- •Decision-Making Around Surgical Critical Care
- •Pulmonary
- •Cardiac
- •Renal
- •Hepatic
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Postoperative Complications Requiring Reoperation
- •Infection Complications: Source Control
- •Missed Enterotomies
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Postoperative Enterocutaneous Fistulas
- •Summary
- •Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections
- •Postoperative Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections (NSTIs)
- •The Management
- •Summary
- •Intestinal Ischemia
- •Summary
- •Open Cholecystectomy
- •Summary
- •The Burst Abdomen
- •The Management
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Hemostatic Resuscitation: Damage Control Resuscitation (DCR)
- •System-Based Damage Control Surgery
- •Damage Control Laparotomy
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •The Component Separation Techniques
- •Onlay Placement
- •Underlay Placement
- •Bridge Mesh Placement
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •The Medically Complex Pediatric Surgical Patient
- •Testicular Torsion
- •Midgut Volvulus
- •Trauma
- •Ileocolic Intussusception
- •Use Cases
- •Use Case 1: Neonatal Abdominal Catastrophes
- •Anorectal Malformations
- •Myelomeningocele
- •Intestinal Atresia
- •Complicated Appendicitis (Abscess or Phlegmon Formation)
- •Complicated Inguinal Hernias
- •Inhaled Foreign Bodies
- •Ambiguous Genitalia
- •Use Case 2: Rare Renal Tumors
- •Use Case 3: Pediatric Traumatic Amputations
- •Complex Congenital Anomalies
- •Suggested Readings
- •15: Surgical Decision-Making: Melanoma
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Decision-Making
- •Intraoperative Challenges
- •Challenging Referrals
- •Sentinel Node Biopsy After Previous Excision
- •References
- •Laparoscopic Banding
- •Band Slippage
- •Pouch Enlargement
- •Band Erosion/Perforation
- •Port Complications
- •Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy
- •Bleeding
- •Leak
- •Stenosis
- •Gastric Bypass
- •Intro
- •Early Complications
- •Bleeding
- •Leak
- •Inaccurate Construction
- •Late Complications
- •Small Bowel Obstruction
- •Stenosis
- •Fistula
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Multidisciplinary Team Meeting
- •Preoperative
- •Intraoperative
- •Postoperative
- •Case 1
- •Case 2
- •Case 3
- •Case 4
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Acute Pancreatitis
- •Diagnosis
- •Gallstone pancreatitis
- •Hemorrhagic Complications
- •The Pregnant Patient
- •Choledocholithiasis
- •Intraoperative Conduct
- •Common Bile Duct Injury
- •Pancreatic Trauma
- •Surgical Options
- •Post-Surgical Care
- •Liver Trauma
- •Hepatic Injury Grading
- •Management Options
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •The Decision-Making Process
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Background
- •Ostomy Surgery
- •Colon Cancer
- •Rectal Cancer
- •Colonic Stenting
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Imaging: CTA, MRI, TEE
- •Morphologic Aortic Assessment
- •Technique
- •Introduction
- •The Operation
- •Eversion Endarterectomy
- •Complications
- •Conclusion
- •Introduction
- •Procedural Steps
- •Conclusion
- •The May–Thurner Syndrome
- •Anatomy
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Imaging Studies
- •Conservative Treatment
- •Conclusions
- •Management After Access Is Created
- •References
- •Sect. 1: Introduction
- •Sect. 2: Modern Management of Acute Aortic Dissection
- •Sect. 3. Carotid Endarterectomy—Can We Make a Good Operation Better? Technical Considereations
- •Sect. 4: Use of Advanced Peripheral Arterial Techniques for Limb Salvage: Role of Intravascular Lithotripsy
- •Sect. 5. The May–Thurner Syndrome
- •Sect. 6: Evaluation of a Patient for Hemodialysis Access
- •Sect. 7: Summary and Future of Vascular Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Primary Survey
- •Airway
- •Breathing
- •Circulation
- •Disability
- •Exposure/Environment
- •Management priorities
- •Damage Control Resuscitation (DCR)
- •Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
- •Abdominal Injuries
- •Damage Control Laparotomy
- •Non-operative management
- •Thoracic Injuries
- •Orthopedic Management
- •Prophylactic Antibiotics
- •Multidisciplinary Care
- •Team Collaboration
- •Sugested Readings
- •Introduction
- •General Remarks
- •Emergency Management
- •Evaluation
- •Management
- •Antimicrobial Therapy
- •Dental Hard Tissues
- •Endodontium
- •Periodontium
- •Alveolar Bone
- •Substance-Saving Restorations
- •Interdisciplinary coNcept
- •Post-initial Treatment
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Expected vs. Unexpected Deaths
- •Second Victim Syndrome
- •Guilt
- •Acceptance
- •Burnout
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •What Is Burnout?
- •At Risk Population
- •Burnout vs. Stress
- •Measuring Tools
- •Causes
- •Burnout Prevention
- •Recovering
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Further Readings
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Index

20 Surgical Decision-Making inEmergency Management ofColon andRectal Malignancies
239
outcomes and can also delay the timing of adjuvant therapy, impacting long-term outcomes.
Patients may present with either contained or free
perforations, both of which result in worse outcomes compared to non-perforated colon cancers. Cheynel et al. compared short- and
long-term outcomes for 89 perforated colon cancers and 5462 uncomplicated colon cancers, nding that perforated cancers had higher operative
mortality and 5-year local recurrence rates [21].
Surprisingly, the incidence of peritoneal carcinomatosis was twice as high in perforated compared to uncomplicated colon cancers.
In the context of an obstructed right colon
mass, the functionality of the ileocecal valve
holds signicant importance. When dealing with
an obstructed right colon cancer and a competent
ileocecal valve, special attention should be
directed toward the cecum due to the heightened
risk of perforation (Fig.20.1).
However, if the ileocecal valve is incompetent, patients can often be managed temporarily
with nasogastric decompression, though eventual
intervention becomes necessary.
For unstable patients experiencing colorectal
obstruction, perforation, or bleeding, the consideration of damage control surgery arises. The primary objective in such cases is source control,
Fig. 20.1 Closed-loop obstruction secondary to obstructing mass of ascending colon with competent ileocecal
valve
with secondary goals focusing on gastrointestinal
reconstruction and delayed abdominal closure,
which may be addressed in a subsequent operation. A “second look” operation might be warranted to further address fecal contamination and
perform additional washout. Damage control surgery serves to correct acidosis, coagulopathy, and
hypothermia before proceeding with denitive
surgical management. When a denitive resection isn’t immediately feasible due to surgical
expertise or other factors, plans for early reintervention should be established.
Various surgical options can be considered for
lesions in the transverse colon, including transverse colectomy, extended right or left colectomy, or subtotal colectomy. However, the
prevalence of transverse colectomy has been
decreasing with the rise of minimally invasive
surgery. Additionally, the overall prognosis for
transverse colon cancers tends to be less favorable compared to cancers located in other parts of
the colon.
In a subtotal colectomy, the right colon and
hepatic exure are mobilized as previously
described. The entire lesser sac is opened, and the
splenic exure is mobilized. Ileocolic pedicle
ligation is performed, followed by a high ligation
of the middle colic artery at its origin from the
superior mesenteric artery. The inferior mesenteric vein is isolated and ligated at the inferior
border of the pancreas, while preserving the inferior mesenteric artery. Finally, an ileocolic anastomosis is created.
Resection of left-sided colonic malignancies
can be approached either medially or laterally.
The lateral approach involves mobilizing the sigmoid and descending colon laterally along the
white line of Toldt to access the retroperitoneal
plane. The colon is then retracted medially to
expose the areolar plane between the mesocolon
and retroperitoneum. Dissection continues until
the sigmoid mesocolon is mobilized to the midline, aiding in the identication of the ureter.
Dissection then progresses toward the splenic
exure, with mobilization of the splenic exure
facilitated by posterior mobilization of the mesocolon to the inferior border of the pancreas.
Resection of omental adhesions may be neces-

240
R. Bendl and J. Clarke
ab
Fig. 20.2 (a) Obstructing mid-transverse colon mass, CT image. (b) Obstructing mid-transverse colon mass, surgical
specimen, high ligation of ileocolic and middle colic vessels
sary to aid in the mobilization of the splenic exure. The inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) is
isolated at its origin from the aorta by creating a
window on the superior side of the vessel medial
to the inferior mesenteric vein (IMV). The IMA
is then ligated after ensuring it has been separated
from the left ureter. The IMV can be elevated
from the retroperitoneum, isolated, and ligated at
the inferior border of the pancreas.
For distal transection, the mesentery is divided
at the rectosigmoid junction, identied by the
splaying of the tenia. A linear stapler is commonly used for transection of the bowel wall.
Careful consideration is given to the creation of
an end colostomy, proximal diverting ileostomy,
or primary anastomosis. If an anastomosis is
fashioned using either a standard transanal endto- end anastomosis stapler or in a handsewn fashion, a leak test should be performed.
In cases of proximal obstruction, size mismatch can pose challenges. A side-to-end anastomosis can serve as an alternative means for
primary anastomosis in such situations. The decision to perform a Hartmann procedure instead of
a primary anastomosis should be based on the
patient’s health, the condition of the bowel, and
the level of contamination or inammation in the
pelvis (Fig.20.2).
A diverting loop ileostomy is warranted to
mitigate the potential septic complications of an
anastomotic leak in this setting. Deferring primary anastomosis is often the safest option and is
generally not criticized.
Rectal Cancer
Managing an acutely complicated rectal cancer is
a daunting surgical scenario. The progression and
standardization of preoperative staging, strategizing, and multimodal management often necessitate delaying surgical intervention, especially in
patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.
Even in urgent situations, it is crucial to avoid
emergent resection of locally advanced cancers
as this could compromise oncological outcomes.
Neoadjuvant treatment has now become the gold
standard in managing locally advanced rectal
malignancies. It not only diminishes tumor size
and reduces local recurrence rates but also
enhances tumor resection success and sphincter
preservation rates (Fig.20.3) [9].
When faced with an obstructing rectal tumor,
diversion is typically the preferred treatment
approach. When deciding between an ileostomy
and a loop colostomy, several factors need consid-

20 Surgical Decision-Making inEmergency Management ofColon andRectal Malignancies
tion of bleeding sites for angioembolization.
Furthermore, due to its xed location within the
pelvis, the tumor can serve as a stable target for
therapeutic, and sometimes palliative, radiation.
Systematic reviews have indicated pooled
response rates of 81% in managing bleeding and
discharge with the use of palliative external beam
radiotherapy [24].
The most challenging scenario undoubtedly
arises in the case of a perforated rectal cancer.
While an extraperitoneal perforation can be managed through diversion followed by chemoradio-
Fig. 20.3 Rectal adenocarcinoma with extraperitoneal
perforation
therapy, leading to denitive resection, a
mid-rectal cancer with proximal extension and
intraperitoneal perforation often necessitates
eration, including the competence of the ileocecal
valve and the level of obstruction. If the patient is
slated for chemotherapy and radiation before formal resection, an ileostomy may be necessary. In
cases of an incompetent ileocecal valve, a loop
ileostomy is often the optimal choice. Conversely,
if there’s complete obstruction with a competent
ileocecal valve, a loop colostomy is typically
favored. If the cecum is nonviable or proximal
perforation due to distal obstruction exists, a
resection with an end stoma and mucous stula is
indicated. In distal obstruction cases, an end
colostomy alone could lead to distal segment
blowout. While self-expandable stents are reasonable for proximal lesions, rectal stenting is usually
swift action. In such cases, diversion alone insufciently controls contamination, making resection the only viable option. Oncologic resection
of the rectal malignancy entails ligating the superior rectal artery and dissecting in the total mesorectal excision (TME) plane. The objective is to
achieve a margin of 5 cm for proximal rectal
lesions, though margins of 2cm or even down to
1cm are acceptable for more distal lesions. Every
effort should be made to achieve an R0 resection,
which may involve multivisceral resection and
could be unattainable without compromising
oncologic outcomes. Given the hostile setting,
anastomosis should be avoided in these
circumstances.
avoided due to potential complications like pain,
tenesmus, incontinence, and stent migration.
Placing a stent near the dentate line in distal rectal
Colonic Stenting
lesions could irritate the squamous columnar
junction and should be avoided [22].
A bleeding locally advanced rectal tumor may
pose challenges for excision compared to a similar lesion located more proximally. Therefore,
alternative treatment avenues need to be explored.
Given that distal lesions are more accessible via
colonoscopic methods, endoscopic interventions
like clipping and tumor fulguration become viable options. Additionally, radiofrequency ablation, utilizing a transanal endoscopic approach,
has been noted as an alternative method for
achieving hemostasis in cases of bleeding rectal
malignancies [23]. Moreover, the extensive collateralization in the rectum enables the identica-
For managing obstructive colon lesions, the use
of a self-expanding colonic stent may be considered for suitable patients. However, colonic stenting is not recommended for patients exhibiting
signs of perforation, septic shock, hemodynamic
instability, or peritonitis. This intervention can
serve as a bridge to surgery or in a palliative context, allowing for a full bowel preparation and
potentially enabling a primary anastomosis.
In a comparison of long-term outcomes, the
patency rate at 18 months was 65.8% for patients
undergoing colonic stenting, whereas it was
90.5% for those who underwent stoma creation
[25]. A Dutch randomized controlled trial com-
241

242
R. Bendl and J. Clarke
paring stenting with resection for near- obstructing
metastatic colon cancer was halted due to high
perforation rates in the stenting group [26].
Unfortunately, the success rates in managing
malignant extracolonic obstruction vary widely,
and complication rates in such cases are signicantly higher compared to primary colorectal
cancer patients.
Several studies have highlighted the effectiveness of stenting as a temporary measure before
denitive resection in patients with acute obstruction. It is generally advisable to wait for at least 10
days before proceeding with surgery, as this
approach has been associated with lower laparoscopic conversion and leak rates, thus enhancing
the feasibility of single-staged operations [27, 28].
Additionally, stenting facilitates a comprehensive evaluation of the remaining colon for synchronous lesions. Although experienced centers
are increasingly employing colonic stents for
more proximal cancers, caution is warranted, as
this may pose technical challenges and increase
the risk of perforation or stent failure in less
experienced hands. Furthermore, stent placement
should be avoided in patients who may require
bevacizumab in the perioperative period, as it signicantly elevates the risk of stent-related perforation compared to baseline populations.
Self-expanding colonic stents may be an
option for managing obstructive colon lesions in
some patients, providing a temporary remedy
before surgery or in a palliative setting.
Nonetheless, caution should be exercised as there
is decreased utility in patients with extracolonic
obstruction. Patients undergoing stenting should
be monitored closely as insufation in the setting
of obstruction may lead to cecal perforation.
Despite being effective in specic scenarios,
meticulous patient selection and procedural prociency are imperative to reduce risks and
enhance outcomes.
While colonic stenting offers valuable benets
in certain cases of obstructive colon lesions, careful patient selection and procedural considerations are essential to minimize risks and
optimize outcomes. Collaboration between multidisciplinary teams and adherence to established
guidelines can aid in the safe and effective implementation of this intervention.
The effective management of acute complications of colon and rectal cancer often hinges upon
multiple factors. It requires prompt action while
ensuring that the patient’s long-term oncologic
prognosis is not compromised. Seeking assistance from consultants and experienced surgeons
can greatly benet the patient. Operative risk and
surgical complications may ultimately result in
delays in anticancer therapies and impact the
overall prognosis.
References
1. Colorectal Cancer Statistics. How common is
colorectal cancer? Retrieved March 18, 2024, from
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/colon- rectalcancer/about/key- statistics.html. Sung H, Ferlay J,
Siegel RL, etal. Global cancer statistics 2020: globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide
for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin.
2021;71(3):209–249.
2. Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI,
Blasi PR. Screening for colorectal cancer:
updated evidence report and systematic review
for the US preventive services task force. JAMA.
2021;325(19):1978.
3. Golder AM, McMillan DC, Horgan PG, Roxburgh
CSD. Determinants of emergency presentation in
patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):4366.
4. Smothers L, Hynan L, Fleming J, Turnage R,
Simmang C, Anthony T.Emergency surgery for colon
carcinoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46(1):24–30.
5. McArdle CS, Hole DJ. Emergency presentation of
colorectal cancer is associated with poor 5-year survival. Br J Surg. 2004;91(5):605–9.
6. Lam AKY, Chan SSY, Leung M. Synchronous
colorectal cancer: clinical, pathological and
molecular implications. World J Gastroenterol.
2014;20(22):6815–20.
7. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology –
Colon Cancer; National Comprehensive Cancer
Network. Retrieved March 21, 2024, from https://
www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/
colon.pdf
8. Phang PT, MacFarlane JK, Taylor RH, etal. Effect of
emergent presentation on outcome from rectal cancer
management. Am J Surg. 2003;185(5):450–4.
9. Li Y, Wang J, Ma X, etal. A review of neoadjuvant
chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer.
Int J Biol Sci. 2016;12(8):1022–31.

20 Surgical Decision-Making inEmergency Management ofColon andRectal Malignancies
243
10. Krarup PM, Nordholm-Carstensen A, Jorgensen LN,
Harling H.Anastomotic leak increases distant recurrence and long-term mortality after curative resection
for colonic cancer: a nationwide cohort study. Ann
Surg. 2014;259(5):930–8.
11. Ellis CT, Maykel JA.Dening anastomotic leak and
the clinical relevance of leaks. Clin Colon Rectal
Surg. 2021;34(6):359–65.
12. Hsu MY, Lin JP, Hsu HH, Lai HL, Wu YL.Preoperative
stoma site marking decreases stoma and peristomal
complications: a meta-analysis. J Wound Ostomy
Continence Nurs. 2020;47(3):249–56.
13. Wocn society, aua, and ascrs position statement on preoperative stoma site marking for patients undergoing
ostomy surgery. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs.
2021;48(6):533–6.
14. Whitehead A, Cataldo PA. Technical considerations in stoma creation. Clin Colon Rectal Surg.
2017;30(3):162–71.
15. Horwood J, Hay D.The “glove cuff” technique for difcult stomas. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91(5):438.
16. Meagher AP, Owen G, Gett R.Multimedia article. An
improved technique for end stoma creation in obese
patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(3):531–3.
17. Du R, Zhou J, Wang F, etal. Whether stoma support
rods have application value in loop enterostomy: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg
Oncol. 2020;18(1):269.
18. Davis BR, Valente MA, Goldberg JE, et al. The
American society of colon and rectal surgeons clinical practice guidelines for ostomy surgery. Dis Colon
Rectum. 2022;65(10):1173–90.
19. Rørvig S, Schlesinger N, Mårtensson NL, Engel
S, Engel U, Holck S. Is the longitudinal margin of
carcinoma- bearing colon resections a neglected
parameter? Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2014;13(1):68–72.
20. Steele SR, Hull TL, Hyman N, Maykel JA, Read TE,
Whitlow CB.The ASCRS textbook of colon and rectal surgery. Springer Nature; 2021.
21. Cheynel N, Cortet M, Lepage C, Ortega-Debalon P,
Faivre J, Bouvier AM. Incidence, patterns of failure, and prognosis of perforated colorectal cancers
in a well-dened population. Dis Colon Rectum.
2009;52(3):406–11.
22. Ribeiro IB, de Moura DTH, Thompson CC, de Moura
EGH. Acute abdominal obstruction: colon stent or
emergency surgery? An evidence-based review. World
J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;11(3):193–208.
23. Vavra P, Dostalik J, Zacharoulis D, Khorsandi SE,
Khan SA, Habib NA. Endoscopic radiofrequency
ablation in colorectal cancer: initial clinical results
of a new bipolar radiofrequency ablation device. Dis
Colon Rectum. 2009;52(2):355–8.
24. Cameron MG, Kersten C, Vistad I, Fosså S, Guren
MG. Palliative pelvic radiotherapy of symptomatic
incurable rectal cancer – a systematic review. Acta
Oncol. 2014;53(2):164–73.
25. Pattarajierapan S, Manomayangoon C, Tipsuwannakul
P, Khomvilai S. Comparison of colonic stenting
and stoma creation as palliative treatment for incurable malignant colonic obstruction. JGH Open.
2022;6(9):630–6.
26. Van Hooft JE, Bemelman WA, Oldenburg B, et al.
Colonic stenting versus emergency surgery for acute
left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter
randomized trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:344–52.
27. Cui J, Zhang JL, Wang S, Sun ZQ, Jiang XL.A preliminary study of stenting followed by laparoscopic surgery for obstructing left-sided colon cancer. Zhonghua
Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2011;14(1):40–3.
28. Lee GJ, Kim HJ, Baek JH, Lee WS, Kwon
KA. Comparison of short-term outcomes after elective surgery following endoscopic stent insertion and
emergency surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer.
Int J Surg. 2013;11(6):442–6.

Surgical Decision-Making
inVascular Surgery: Practical
Approaches toNew Innovative
Techniques andRevisiting Old
Ones
IgorA.Laskowski, SateeshBabu, DanielVentarola,
HeepeelChang, ArunGoyal, JosephFulton,
andRifatLati
21
Introduction
The art and the science development of surgery
and the surgical decision-making have changed
drastically and radically from many points of
view, but most noticeably in vascular surgery
from training of vascular surgeons, technical
approaches to the same diseases that we have
been looking after for decades, their overall management, and the surgical decision-making
requiring into navigating the complexities of
I. A. Laskowski (*) · S. Babu · D. Ventarola ·
A. Goyal · J. Fulton
Vascular Section of the Department of Surgery,
Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY, USA
New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA
e-mail: Igor.Laskowski@wmchealth.org;
Sateesh.Babu@wmchealth.org;
Daniel.Ventarola@wmchealth.org;
Arun.Goyal@wmchealth.org;
Joseph.Fulton@wmchealth.org
H. Chang
Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY, USA
e-mail: Heepeel.Chang@wmchealth.org
R. Lati
Department of Surgery, The University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, USA
Tucson Medical Center, Department of Surgery,
Tucson, AZ, USA
e-mail: Lati@surgery.arizona.edu
treating a diverse array of vascular conditions.
There has been a considerable progress in the
treatment of vascular pathology and thus major
changes in decision-making in carotid disease
[1–3], non-traumatic aortic dissection that
expands with time [4–6], and traumatic aortic
injuries previously deadly or with very high morbidity have been seem [7–11].
In addition, major progress has been made in
the management of peripheral vascular disease
as well [12–14]. The evaluation of patients
requiring access for arteriovenous hemodialysis
is one of the most common vascular procedures
performed [15–17]. The management of venous
disease management [18–20] will not be discussed in this chapter. However, we will discuss
a rare but an important clinical entity that is the
May-Thurner syndrome.
By exploring these specic clinical scenarios, we
aim to illuminate the nuanced considerations, diagnostic challenges, and treatment options that vascular surgeons must navigate to deliver optimal care
and achieve favorable outcomes for their patients.
The decision-making process in carotid surgery involves assessing the risk-benet prole of
carotid endarterectomy versus carotid artery
stenting for the management of carotid artery disease. Factors such as patient comorbidities, lesion
characteristics, and individualized risk assessment, and nally surgeon’s and institutional
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
R. Lati (ed.), Surgical Decision-Making, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-67391-7_21
245

246
e
c
expertise play a pivotal role in determining the
most appropriate treatment strategy to reduce the
risk of stroke and improve long-term vascular
health.
In aortic surgery, the decision-making process
has changed dramatically from open surgery to
minimally invasive -endovascular surgical
approaches. This includes the evaluation of aortic
aneurysms, dissections, and other complex aortic
pathologies. In these conditions the surgical
decision- making depends on the size, location,
and morphology of the aortic lesion, as well as
the patient’s overall health status, to determine
the most optimal timing and type of intervention,
whether it be open surgical, endovascular, or
hybrid procedures.
Peripheral vascular surgery presents unique
challenges in decision-making, particularly in the
context of peripheral arterial disease, critical
limb ischemia, and venous insufciency. The surgical decision-making must balance the goals of
revascularization, limb salvage opportunity, and
pain relief. All these require a comprehensive
assessment of the patient’s vascular anatomy,
functional status, and quality of life considerations to tailor the most appropriate treatment
approach for each individual. Furthermore, the
evaluation of patients requiring access for hemodialysis as one of the most common vascular
accesses in patients with kidney failure requires a
very focused, individualized and patient centered
surgical decision-making.
Modern Management ofAcute
Aortic Dissection
Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is an uncommon
but potentially catastrophic condition that
requires prompt intervention to assure patient
survival. The AAD is dened as separation of the
aortic wall due to a degenerative process of the
media layer that results in formation of two separate lumens that may span the entire length of the
aorta and beyond Fig.21.1.
Two different clinical presentations that follow clinically distinct management pathways are
known.
I. A. Laskowski et al.
True lumen in th
descending aorti
segment
False lumen in the
descending aortic
segment
Dissection
extending beyond
common femoral
artery bifurcation
Fig. 21.1 Aortic dissection can extent from aortic arch
and into femoral vessel
Acute Stanford Type A dissection (DeBakey
type 1 and 2 and Stanford Type A **) (Figs.21.2
and 21.3) involves the ascending part of the aorta
with or without distal extension and is considered
a surgical emergency. If untreated, patient mortality may be as high as 50% in 24h from presentation. In addition, the involvement of aortic arch
in dissection adds to the complexity of the management especially with regard to the need for
and timing of the arch repair.
Acute Type B aortic dissection (aTBAD) (Figs.
21.2 and 21.4) involves descending part of the
aorta and can be either an isolated occurrence
without ascending aortic inclusion or as a residual dissection remaining after previous Type A
repair. TBAD rarely presents as a true surgical
emergency however in cases of malperfusion or
frank aortic rupture emergent intervention should
be considered.
Historically, main therapy for uncomplicated
aTBAD without aortic rupture or end-organ malperfusion was medically aimed at blood pressure
optimization with impulse control and close observation. However, medical management was shown
to have up to 10% 30-day mortality and was asso-

Stanford Type A Stanford Type B
21 Surgical Decision-Making in Vascular Surgery: Practical Approaches to New Innovative Techniques…
247
Fig. 21.2 DeBakey and Stanford aortic dissection classication**
ciated with a need for surgical interventions for
aortic-related morbidity. In turn, any future aortic
interventions following episode of TBAD were
related to worse patient survival [21, 22].
With wide adaptation of endovascular therapies, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)
for complicated and subsequently TBAD with
high-risk anatomic features has been proposed
and used with some success. The initial approach
to dissection stenting was to cover the primary
entry tear usually located in the very proximal
descending thoracic aorta. The idea and hope
behind this approach were to induce false lumen
thrombosis once the entry tears were excluded.
Because of the fact that more distal aortic reentry
tears usually exist, this technique was found to be
quite ineffective and persistent false lumen ow
was present in up to 80% of patients [23]. In turn
Fig. 21.3 Type A aortic dissection
ongoing false lumen patency and pressurization

248
I. A. Laskowski et al.
can be directly related to the enlargement of aortic diameter in up to 50% of cases and may result
in late aneurysmal aortic degeneration and rupture [24]. Additionally, it has been shown that
presence of patent and partially thrombosed false
Fig. 21.4 Type B aortic dissection
lumens almost always leads to aortic diameter
enlargement that at times may be very rapid specically putting this patient population at even
greater risk of failure after proximal TEVAR for
TBAD [25]. Secondary tears have been frequently found in the paravisceral aortic segment
where limitations of stent technology disallowed
successful false lumen exclusion because of possibility of gut ischemia.
Considering these obvious disadvantages of
proximal tear only coverage an aortic dissection
bare stent system graft (Cook Medical,
Bloomington, IN) was introduced with the idea
that it can be deployed in the paravisceral segment of the dissected aorta (Fig.21.5). The combination with covered stent is known as dissection
stent system and has been used in the attempt to
increase true lumen of dissected aorta in the technique known as PETICOAT (provisional extension to induce complete attachment) [26, 27].
Unfortunately, the results of such repairs, again,
showed high rate of false lumen ow, negative
aortic remodeling, and presence of aneurysmal
aortic degeneration in up to 63% of treated subjects in late period. This in turn lead to a signicant number of secondary interventions including
late open conversions when thoracoabdominal
aneurysmal degeneration occurred (Fig. 21.6)
[28, 29].
Fig. 21.5 Aortic
dissection stent system

21 Surgical Decision-Making in Vascular Surgery: Practical Approaches to New Innovative Techniques…
249
In order to address false lumen (FL) ow still
present in patients with PETTICOAT, another
step was added to the treatment algorithm. It
Fig. 21.6 Chronic postdissection TAAA following
TEVAR for acute TBAD
involves angioplasty of the stented aortic segment
with a large volume-low pressure balloon appropriately sized to the diameter of the aorta at the
given segment. This approach if performed successfully allows for immediate re-lamination of
the dissection ap in the position of outer aortic
wall that is held in place by previously deployed
stent. The procedure is known as STABILISEstent-assisted balloon-induced intimal disruption
and re-lamination in aortic dissection repair and
was rst described by Hofferberth [30] (Fig.21.7).
Although this technique creates an immediate
single aortic channel, concerns for aortic rupture
and catastrophic failure exist. In the next part of
this chapter, we will describe our institutional
application of STABILISE technique in patients
with acute and subacute TBAD that we feel provide save and durable outcome for this patient
population.
Surgical Technique:
First step of evaluation and diagnosis of TBAD
is based on imaging that is usually available before
patient’s arrival given the regional referral center
role that our institution serves. If type A dissection
is conrmed, an emergent open repair by the cardiothoracic part of our team is performed and decision for treatment of residual TBAD is made in the
postoperative period during the same admission.
Aortic measurements of true, false, and total aortic
lumen and all aortic levels are obtained (Fig.21.8).
Fig. 21.7 Aortic
angioplasty for
immediate aortic
remodeling in
STABLIZE technique
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
