Eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy: A retrospective cohort study.

Area of Science:

• Vascular Surgery
• Cardiovascular Surgery
• Surgical Techniques

Background:

• Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a crucial procedure for stroke prevention.
• Evaluating novel surgical techniques like eversion CEA (E-CEA) is vital for optimizing patient outcomes and safety.
• Conventional CEA (C-CEA) involves specific steps that may be improved upon.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effectiveness and safety of the eversion carotid endarterectomy (E-CEA) technique versus the conventional carotid endarterectomy (C-CEA) technique.
• To assess differences in surgical outcomes, including operation time, cross-clamp time, and complication rates.
• To determine if E-CEA is a safe and effective alternative to C-CEA.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective study of 207 patients undergoing isolated carotid endarterectomy between 2015 and 2024.
• Comparison of E-CEA and C-CEA techniques.
• Evaluation of patch utilization, cross-clamp time, operation time, stroke, mortality, myocardial infarction, and nerve injury rates.

Main Results:

• Perioperative cross-clamp and operation times were significantly shorter in the E-CEA group.
• No patch utilization was required in the E-CEA group, reducing procedure time and avoiding an additional incision.
• E-CEA showed similar rates of stroke, mortality, myocardial infarction, and local nerve injury compared to C-CEA.

Conclusions:

• Eversion carotid endarterectomy (E-CEA) is a safe and effective alternative to conventional carotid endarterectomy (C-CEA).
• E-CEA offers statistically significant advantages in reduced operation and cross-clamp times, and eliminates the need for patching.
• Further randomized prospective studies with larger cohorts are recommended for more definitive conclusions.