Search

Introduction: Cardiac arrest with cardioplegia is the most common and reliable method of myocardial protection in cardiac surgery, but there is no definite consensus on the use of different types of cardioplegia. Two of the commonly used types of cardioplegia are Bretschneider histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution (Custodiol) and conventional blood cardioplegia. In this study, Custodiol solution and conventional blood cardioplegia used in patients with type A aortic dissection who underwent supracoronary ascending aortic replacement were aimed to be compared in terms of postoperative results., Methods: 70 patients with type A aortic dissection who underwent supracoronary ascending aortic replacement in our clinic between January 2011 - October 2020 were included. Patients were divided into two groups, blood cardioplegia group ( n = 48) and Custodiol group ( n = 22) and they were compared regarding preoperative, perioperative and postoperative variables., Results: There was no significant difference between cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp time ( p = 0.17 and p = 0.16, respectively). Mechanical ventilator weaning time, intensive care unit stay and hospital stay were shorter in Custodiol group ( p = 0.04, p = 0.03 and p = 0.05, respectively). While inotropic support need was higher in the blood cardioplegia group ( p = 0.001), there was no significant difference in terms of mortality, arrhythmia, neurological complications and renal complications., Conclusions: Our results show that Custodiol cardioplegia solution may be superior to blood cardioplegia in reducing mechanical ventilation weaning period, intensive care and hospital stay, and reducing the use of inotropic agents in patients with type A aortic dissection undergoing supracoronary ascending aorta replacement., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objectives: Carotid near occlusion (CNO) treatment is still controversial. In the discussion of surgical revascularization of these patients, periprocedural complications and technical failure should be considered in addition to the long-term results. We examined the efficacy and safety of surgical treatment in CNO and non-CNO patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA)., Methods: Data from 152 patients (118 male and 34 female) who underwent isolated CEA between January 2018 and June 2020 without critical contralateral lesions were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: CNO (n = 52) and non-CNO (n = 100). The groups were compared regarding postoperative transient ischemic attack (TIA), ipsilateral ischemic stroke, and mortality., Results: The success rate of the procedure was 100% in the CNO group and 99% in the Non-CNO group. In the Non-CNO group, 1 patient had ipsilateral ischemic stroke on postoperative day 0, and this patient was treated with carotid artery stenting. While the number of patients who died in the non-CNO group was 3 (3%) overall, the exitus rate was 1 (1.9%) in the CNO group (P >.05). In the CNO group, retinal TIA was observed in 1 patient (1.9%), ischemic stroke in 2 patients (3.8%), and TIA in 1 patient (1.9%). In the non-CNO group; Retinal TIA was observed in 1 patient (1.0%), ischemic stroke in 2 patients (2.0%), and TIA in 2 patients (2.0%). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of postoperative neurologic complications and primary endpoints at 12-month follow-up (P >.05)., Conclusions: Carotid endarterectomy is a safe, feasible, and advantageous procedure in selected CNO patients, as in non-CNO carotid artery patients. Therefore, we recommend a surgical approach to prevent neurological events in CNO patients.

Objectives: In addition to the hemostatic properties of hemostatic agents, the investigation of their immunogenic properties, their local effects on application area has been the subject of many experimental studies. There are limited data on the inflammatory effects of Bovine serum albumin-glutaraldehyde and Polyethylene glycol polymer. Therefore, we investigated the effects of these agents on tissue reactions and inflammation in rabbit carotid artery anastomosis in our experimental study., Methods: Twenty-one New Zealand male rabbits were randomly divided into three groups. The right carotid artery anastomosis was performed on the control group after transection. Hemostatic agents were applied locally to other two groups separately after transection and anastomosis. At the end of 28 days, the type of inflammation, inflammatory cell infiltration, degree of inflammation, and amount of residual adhesives were examined and compared statistically., Results: Cell infiltrations associated with inflammation on the anastomosis site (eosinophils, epithelioid/giant cells, lymphocytes, and plasma cells) and inflammation grade in the groups of hemostatic agents were significantly lower compared to the control group ( p < .05). There was no difference between the hemostatic agents. While mild inflammation (61.9%) was dominant in the groups of hemostatic agents, moderate inflammation (85.7%) was more common in the control group. No severe inflammation was observed in any of the three groups. Residual sealant grade between hemostatic agents did not differ significantly., Conclusions: When inflammation and tissue reactions of the 4th week were evaluated, it was determined that both hemostatic agents did not cause severe inflammation. However, comparative results at multiple time intervals are needed due to the dynamic process of inflammation.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) causes thromboembolic complications during or post-infection period despite a lack of conventional risk factors. The study aims to learn fundamental changes in COVID-19 patients who underwent embolectomy in terms of clinical characteristics and clot composition., Methods: In a retrospective cohort study design, we evaluated 21 patients who underwent embolectomy in our clinic between March 12, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Demographics, characteristics, and laboratory values were abstracted and analyzed. Histopathological assessment was held in the pathology department., Results: Of these 21 patients, 11 (52.3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive and 10 (47.6%) were SARS-CoV-2 negative. There is no statistical difference in terms of anatomic distribution, diagnostic method, length of hospital stay, amputation or mortality levels. Thromboembolic material of COVID-19 patients include significantly less red blood cell (RBC) (21.2-32.6%; P= 0.01), more lymphocyte (14.1-2.6%; P< 0.001), and more leukocyte (27.1-22.1%; P= 0.05). There was no statistical difference between the fibrin ratio., Conclusions: Inflammatory cells are prominent in arterial thromboembolic material of COVID-19 patients. A combination of hyperinflammation and prothrombotic status may be responsible for this phenomenon., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study aims to compare outcomes of minithoracotomy versus median sternotomy for atrial septal defect closure., Methods: Between January 2012 and May 2017, a total of 44 patients (8 males, 36 females; mean age 33.86 years; range, 14 to 63 years) who underwent atrial septal defect repair through mini-thoracotomy or median sternotomy in our clinic were retrospectively analyzed. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative data of the patients were recorded., Results: There was no significant difference in the cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times between the groups, although the duration of operation was shorter in the mini-thoracotomy group (p=0.001). No significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of early mortality, neurological complications, and residual atrial septal defect. The mean mechanical ventilation time and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay were statistically significantly shorter, and the amount of bleeding was statistically significantly lower in the mini-thoracotomy group (p=0.001 for all)., Conclusion: Mini-thoracotomy should be kept in mind as a favorable alternative to sternotomy following a satisfactory learning curve period with less cost and higher patient benefit., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article., (Copyright © 2019, Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery.)

Background: This study aims to compare the results of hybrid procedure and open surgery for the treatment of aortic arch aneurysms., Methods: Twenty-six p atients (21 m ales, 5 females; m ean a ge 56.6±12.4 years; range, 20 to 83 years) who underwent total aortic arch replacement for aortic arch aneurysm between January 2004 and January 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: open conventional surgery group (group 1, n=15) and hybrid procedure (total debranching of the aortic arch and simultaneous endovascular stent) group (group 2, n=11). Survival rates and need for reoperation were compared between the groups., Results: The hybrid procedure was found to be more favorable in terms of postoperative revision, extubation period, and drainage amounts. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the survival rates, need for reoperation, and major adverse cardiovascular events between the groups., Conclusion: Our study results suggest that conventional open surgery and hybrid procedure are similar in terms of survival and short-to-mid-term results in patients undergoing total aortic arch replacement for aortic arch aneurysm., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article., (Copyright © 2018, Turkish Society of Cardiovascular Surgery.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Background: Surgical intervention is mandatory in many children who present with vascular trauma or in complicated cases after medical interventions. In this study, surgical interventions applied after vascular injuries in children were analyzed., Methods: Between January 2002 and December 2012, 17 patients (aged under 18) who were admitted to the emergency room with vascular injuries were retrospectively analyzed. The data was collected through hospital records. Preoperative and postoperative data of the patients were recorded and analyzed., Results: Of the total, 11 patients were female (64.7%) and 6 patients were male (35.3%) with a range of 4-192 months. In total, 14 (82.3%) injuries were due to angiographic interventions, 1 (5.9%) was due to external trauma, 1 (5.9%) was due to preoperative trauma, and 1 (5.9%) was due to a catheterization complication in the intensive care unit. Additionally, 11 (64.7%) injuries were located in the right femoral artery, 3 (17.6%) were located in the left femoral artery, 2 (11.8%) were located in the left brachial artery, and 1 (5.9%) was located in the left external iliac vein. Also, 5 (29.4%) patients were managed under local anesthesia and 12 (70.6%) patients were managed under general anesthesia. With respect to treatment, 15 (88.2%) injuries were repaired with primary sutures, 1 (5.9%) injury was repaired with an end-to-end anastomosis, and 1 (5.9%) injury was repaired with a saphenous vein graft interposition. In addition, 16 (94.1%) patients underwent a thrombectomy prior to the repair. The total hospital stay was calculated as 2.7±1.4 days. The intensive care unit stay was calculated as 1.1±0.4 days. There was no mortality, a loss of an injured extremity, or an infection. No other complication was detected., Conclusion: Iatrogenic interventional procedures seem to be responsible for the majority of pediatric vascular injuries. The results of surgical repairs in these injuries are successful and efficient.

Background: Penetrating cardiac injuries are high-risk, high-mortality injuries considering the outcomes. Therefore, it is important to choose the appropriate incision. In general clinical settings, thoracotomy and median sternotomy are choices of incisions to explore the injury. In this study, the results of median sternotomy and thoracotomy in penetrating cardiac injuries were compared., Methods: Between January 2003 and December 2013, forty patients, who underwent either thoracotomy or median sternotomy for penetrating cardiac injury, were retrospectively analyzed, and the collected data were compared. Twenty-six patients underwent thoracotomy (Group 1), and fourteen patients underwent median sternotomy (Group 2)., Results: There was no statistically significant gender difference between the groups. However, the mean age in Group 2 was found to be significantly higher than the one in Group 1 (p<0.05)., Conclusion: There were no significant survival differences between the groups in the long term. Incision choice should be determined considering the site of injury and whether there is an accompanying pulmonary injury or not. On the other hand, thoracotomy has some draw backs compared to median sternotomy.