Analysis and methods of prevention of cranial nerves injury during carotid endarterectomy
https://doi.org/10.35401/2500-0268-2019-16-4-18-23
Abstract
Aim. CEAE is an effective method of ischemic stroke prevention. However, as any invasive treatment method, CEAE is associated with a risk of complications in the early and late postoperative periods. One of the possible complications is intraoperative injury of cranial nerves.
Material and Methods. From 2008 to 2014 in the department of vascular surgery in Pletnev City Hospital in Moscow, 172 patients with hemodynamically significant ICA stenosis who suffered ischemic stroke or TIA underwent surgery.
Results. In the early postoperative period, 7 episodes of cranial nerve injury (4.0%) were detected. The following cranial nerves were most often damaged during surgery: the terminal branches of the facial nerve (VII), the hypoglossus nerve (XII), the glossopharyngeal nerve (IX), and the vagus nerve (X). Injuries were associated with coagulation damage or compression of nerves. In one case, the intersection of the hypoglossus nerve was recorded. In all cases except this one, nerve damage was reversible.
Conclusion. It is impossible to avoid cranial nerves injury during carotid endarterectomy. However, the number of such complications can be reduced by the measures described in this article.
About the Authors
A. V. Matyushkin
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Matyushkin Andrey V. – Dr. of Sci. (Med.), Professor of Department of Pediatric Surgery Faculty
32, 11 Parkovaja str., Moscow, 105077
A. Kh. Mustafin
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mustafin Aidar Kh. – Assistant Рrofessor of Department of Pediatric Surgery Faculty
32, 11 Parkovaja str., Moscow, 105077
References
1. Josse Biller MD. Practicalneurology. Treatment. Moscow: Medicinskaya literature; 2005. 416 p. (in Russ.).
2. Skvortsova VI. Evzelman MA. Ichemitcheskiy insult. Orel: Orel-Trud, 2006. 404 p. (in Russ.).
3. Cao P. Giordano G. A randomized study on eversion versus standart carotid endarterectomy: study design and preliminary results: the EVEREST trial. J. Vasc. Surgery 1998;27(4):595-605. doi:10.1016/s0741-5214(98)70223-x.
4. Clagett G.P., Patterson C.B., Fisher D. jr, et al. Vein patch versus primary closure for carotid endarterectomy. A randomized prospective study in a selected group of patients. Journal of Vascular Surgery.1989;9(2);213-223.
5. Prives M.G. Anatomia Cheloveka. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatelskiy dom SPB MALO, 2017.720 р. (in Russ.).
6. Demirel S., Attigah N., Bruijnen H., et al. Eversion carotid endarterectomy is associated with impaired postoperative hemodynamic stability compared with the conventional technique. Annals of Vascular Surgery. 2012;26(6):755-765. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2011.12.015.
7. Liapis C.D., Bell P.R., et al. ESVS Guidelines. Invasive treatment for carotid stenosis: indications, techniques. European Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2009;37(4), p.1-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2008.11.006.
8. Taurino M., Filippi F., et al. Hemodynamic changes in Chevalier eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2014;48(5):514-520. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2014.08.005.
Review
For citations:
Matyushkin A.V., Mustafin A.Kh. Analysis and methods of prevention of cranial nerves injury during carotid endarterectomy. Innovative Medicine of Kuban. 2019;(4):18-23. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.35401/2500-0268-2019-16-4-18-23
Views:
954
Email this article 
