Cardiothoracic & vascular anesthesia
Comparison of Landmark-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Cerebrospinal Fluid Drain-Related Complications After Aortic Repairs
Authors' conclusion
In patients undergoing thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic repairs, there were no significant differences in the risk of major and minor CSFD-related complications between fluoroscopic guidance and the landmark approach.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic repair with a CSFD over a 7-year period at a single centerCerebrospinal fluid drains (CSFDs) placed
- Participants
- 95 vs 150
- Exposure
- Fluoroscopy-guided vs landmark-guided CSFD placement
- Fluoroscopyn = 95
- Landmarkn = 150reference
- Outcome
- Composites of major and minor CSFD-related complications
Methodological detailssingle-centre
- Single-centre
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Major and minor CSFD-related complications
Major CSFD-related complications, all cases
4.5%
Minor CSFD-related complications, all cases
6.1%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| CSFD placement attemptsFewer attempts with fluoroscopy | P = 0.011 |
| Duration of CSFD in placeLonger with fluoroscopy | P < 0.001 |
Original publication
Comparison of Landmark-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Cerebrospinal Fluid Drain-Related Complications After Aortic Repairs. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. Published 2 June 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →