Why the study?
What are the operative nuances and outcomes of eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy?
What are the operative nuances and outcomes of eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy?
This review highlights the technical variations and differing specialty preferences (neurosurgical vs. vascular) between conventional and eversion carotid endarterectomy.
Technique preferences vary by specialty in carotid endarterectomy; leaves open comparative effectiveness in prospective trials.
The major objective in carotid endarterectomy is to achieve safe and complete removal of intimal plaque and provide lasting, nonstenotic closure. Controversy exists as to which technical variation best achieves this. In this paper, the authors review the operative nuances and outcomes with conventional and eversion endarterectomy, with a focus on the latter. The views expressed reflect specific neurosurgical and vascular perspectives in the context of a multi-disciplinary stroke unit, where carotid stenosis is managed with all available open and endovascular means. The neurosurgical approach was almost entirely conventional endarterectomy with primary repair, while the vascular surgeons used the eversion method with few exceptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Curtis et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: