PubMed · 7562817
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S K Glen, D G Grosset. 1995. Duplex versus angiography.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7562817/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the surgical approach and clipping of aneurysms located at the carotid cave region. METHOD: Between 1980 and 1998 we have adopted the well known ipsilateral approach for exposure and securing of carotid cave aneurysms. In four patients, we had the opportunity to use a contralateral approach to carotid cave aneurysms, with easier dissection and application of a simple aneurysmal clip. The visual acuity of the patients did not deteriorate from the pre-operative level. FINDING AND INTERPRETATION: Aneurysms located at the carotid cave region may be approached easily and safely through a contralateral craniotomy with application of the aneurysm clip from an angle medial and inferior to the optic nerve.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Duplex imaging is increasingly used as the only investigation before carotid endarterectomy, but many different criteria exist in the literature for the detection of a severe (70-99 per cent) carotid stenosis. This study aimed to investigate current practice in carotid duplex imaging in Great Britain and Ireland. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to 86 vascular surgical units. RESULTS: The median number of scans performed per year was 450 (range 60-4500). Thirty-six per cent of units who responded used peak systolic : end diastolic velocity ratio to calculate carotid stenosis. Overall, nine different major duplex criteria were used to grade carotid stenosis in 14 different systems of percentage bands. Only 51 per cent of units verified their duplex criteria against angiography. Eighteen per cent of units used two or more different types of duplex scanner and applied the same diagnostic criteria to each machine. CONCLUSION: A wide variation in diagnostic duplex criteria and methods of grading stenosis exists among vascular units. Internal validation is not performed routinely. Standardization of duplex criteria would ensure greater consistency, but would not replace the need for validation of results within each unit.