Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
32 Мб
Скачать
20 Surgical Decision-Making inEmergency Management ofColon andRectal 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 signicant 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 denitive surgical management. When a denitive 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 identication 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, identied 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 inammation 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 inEmergency Management ofColon andRectal 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 denitive 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 insuf­ciently 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 2cm or even down to 1cm 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 identica-
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 signi­cantly higher compared to primary colorectal cancer patients.
Several studies have highlighted the effective­ness of stenting as a temporary measure before denitive 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 sig­nicantly 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 insufation in the setting of obstruction may lead to cecal perforation. Despite being effective in specic scenarios, meticulous patient selection and procedural pro­ciency are imperative to reduce risks and enhance outcomes.
While colonic stenting offers valuable benets 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 benet 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. A review of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Int J Biol Sci. 2016;12(8):1022–31.
20 Surgical Decision-Making inEmergency Management ofColon andRectal 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.Dening 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 dif­cult 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, etal. 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-dened 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 inVascular Surgery: Practical Approaches toNew Innovative Techniques andRevisiting Old Ones
IgorA.Laskowski, SateeshBabu, DanielVentarola, HeepeelChang, ArunGoyal, JosephFulton, andRifatLati
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 [13], non-traumatic aortic dissection that expands with time [46], and traumatic aortic injuries previously deadly or with very high mor­bidity have been seem [711].
In addition, major progress has been made in the management of peripheral vascular disease as well [1214]. The evaluation of patients requiring access for arteriovenous hemodialysis is one of the most common vascular procedures performed [1517]. The management of venous disease management [1820] 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 specic 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-benet prole 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 insufciency. 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 ofAcute Aortic Dissection
Acute aortic dissection (AAD) is an uncommon but potentially catastrophic condition that requires prompt intervention to assure patient survival. The AAD is dened 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 24h 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 classication**
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 spe­cically 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 signi­cant 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 conrmed, 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