Alexander Oberhuber

Background: For (thoracic) endovascular aortic repair ((T)EVAR) procedures, both mobile (standard operating room (SOR)) and fixed C-arm (hybrid operating room (HOR)) systems are available. This study evaluated differences in key procedural parameters, and procedural success for (T)EVAR in the SOR versus the HOR. Methods: All patients who underwent standard elective (T)EVAR at the Clinic for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery at the University Hospital Duesseldorf, Germany, between 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2019 were included. Data were retrieved from archived medical records. Endpoints were analyzed for SOR versus HOR during (T)EVAR. Results: A total of 93 patients, including 50 EVAR (SOR (n = 20); HOR (n = 30)) and 43 TEVAR (SOR (n = 22); HOR (n= 21)) were included. The dose area product (DAP) for EVAR and TEVAR was lower in the SOR than in the HOR (EVAR, SOR: 1635 ± 1088 cGy·cm2; EVAR, HOR: 7819 ± 8928 cGy·cm2; TEVAR, SOR: 8963 ± 34,458 cGy·cm2; TEVAR, HOR: 14,591 ± 11,584 cGy·cm2 (p < 0.05)). Procedural fluoroscopy time was shorter in the SOR than in the HOR for EVAR and TEVAR (EVAR, SOR: 7 ± 4 min; EVAR, HOR: 18.8 ± 11.3 min; TEVAR, SOR: 6.6 ± 9.6 min; TEVAR, HOR: 13.9 ± 11.8 min (p < 0.05)). Higher volumes of contrast agent were applied during EVAR and TEVAR in the SOR than in the HOR (EVAR, SOR: 57.5 ± 20 mL; EVAR: HOR: 33.3 ± 5 mL (p < 0.05); TEVAR; SOR: 71.5 ± 53.4 mL, TEVAR, HOR: 48.2 ± 27.5 mL (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: The use of a fixed C-arm angiography system in the HOR results in higher radiation exposure and longer fluoroscopy times but lower contrast agent volumes when compared with mobile C-arm systems in the SOR. Because stochastic radiation sequelae are more likely to be tolerated in an older patient population and, in addition, there is a higher incidence of CKD in this patient population, allocation of patients to the HOR for standard (T)EVAR seems particularly advisable based on our results.

Gelatin-based hemostats have been used in various surgical fields and showed advantageous effects on central aspects of wound healing when compared to cellulose-based hemostats. Nevertheless, the influence of gelatin-based hemostats on wound healing has not been fully explored yet. Hemostats were applied to fibroblast cell cultures for 5, 30, 60 min, 24 h, 7 and 14 days and measurements were taken at 3, 6, 12, 24 h and 7 or 14 days, respectively. Cell proliferation was quantified after different exposure times and a contraction assay was conducted to measure the extent of the extracellular matrix over time. We further assessed quantitative levels of vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Fibroblast counts decreased significantly at 7 and 14 days independent of the application duration (p < 0.001 for 5 min application). The gelatin-based hemostat did not have a negative impact on cell matrix contraction. After application of gelatin-based hemostat, the basic fibroblast growth factor did not change; yet, the vascular endothelial growth factor significantly increased after a prolonged 24 h application time when compared to controls or to a 6 h exposure (p < 0.05). Gelatin-based hemostats did not impair contraction of the extracellular matrix or growth factor production (vascular endothelial growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor), while cell proliferation diminished at late time points. In conclusion, the gelatin-based material seems to be compatible with central aspects of wound healing. For further clinical assessment, future animal and human studies are necessary.