|
|
||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:1264-1268
© 1998 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
b Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Accepted for publication April 27, 1998.
Address reprint requests to Dr Satta, Department of Surgery, University of Oulu, Kajaanintie 52 A, FIN-90220 Oulu, Finland
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods. The basic population comprised 540 patients who were scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting, and 52 of them who met the research criteria were chosen for computed tomographic evaluation after 5 years after the primary operation.
Results. As a substitute, polytetrafluoroethylene seemed to be less adhesive to the posterior surface of the sternum. Total adhesion scores were also statistically significant (p < 0.001) to the advantage of polytetrafluoroethylene over polyglycolic acid as a pericardial substitute.
Conclusions. Polytetrafluoroethylene membrane seems to be capable of minimizing retrosternal adhesion formation and thus it may protect the heart during subsequent reoperative sternotomy.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Reoperations entail higher rates of morbidity and mortality, partly as a result of retrosternal adhesions, which can cause severe, even catastrophic bleeding at reentry. Therefore, certain measures should be taken at the time of the original operation to make the subsequent reopening of the sternum easier. Closure of the native pericardium can maintain a plane of cleavage between the heart and the sternum, thus helping to avoid accidental laceration of the right atrium, right ventricle, aorta, or coronary grafts at reoperation. The pericardium, however, cannot always be closed.
As an alternative to closure of the native pericardium, the pericardium can be closed with various substitutes. Several materials have been suggested and used: bovine, canine, or equine preserved pericardium, dura mater, autologous fascia lata, silicone rubber, siliconized Dacron, polypropylene and polyethylene films, or patches made of polyhydroxybutyrate [25]. Although several experimental studies have proved encouraging, the clinical attempts have been less satisfactory. At present, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) surgical membrane and biodegradable polyglycolic acid (PGA) mesh seem to be the most suitable pericardial substitutes for closure purposes [6].
The possibilities for assessing pericardial and retrosternal adhesions before repeat operation are limited. Imaging techniques such as computed tomography (CT) can provide a detailed display of the thoracic anatomy and hence can be useful for investigating retrosternal adhesions [79].
The present survey was designed to evaluate the clinical feasibility of PTFE and PGA patches as pericardial substitutes, using CT for imaging the postoperative state of the retrosternal space.
| Material and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
The CTs were performed using contiguous end-inspiratory helical scanning with 5 mm collimation complemented with 1 mm high resolution scans at 20-mm intervals from the level of the ascending aorta down to the subcardiac diaphragm (GE HiSpeed Advantage; General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI). The axial scans were filled out with midline sagittal reformats reconstructed from the overlapping helical scans (2-mm spacings). For interpretation, the images were printed on films with the mediastinal window. The same protocol was applied to 3 patients referred for chest CT for other reasons without pericardial abnormality, and these scans were used for reference purposes. The scans were evaluated by two radiologists, who first interpreted them separately and then gave a consensus interpretation. Retrosternal adhesions were considered to be present when the low-attenuating fat between the sternum and the anterior cardiac surface was absent or replaced by scar tissue. The degree or width of the adherence of scar tissue to the anterior chest wall was classified as follows: 0 = no adhesions, 1 = minimal adhesions ("peak sign") (Fig 1 ), 2 = moderate adhesions (Fig 2 ), and 3 = severe adhesions ("flat sign") (Fig 3 ). The free space between the epicardium and the substitutes was coded as follows on the grounds of the problems expected at reopening: 1 = no adherence, 2 = severe adherence. In each case the evaluation was made at three levels: the extreme cranial section was chosen at the level of the ascending aorta and main pulmonary artery, the middle level accounted for the middle portion of the right ventricle, and the extreme caudal section for evaluation was selected at the level of the acute margin of the right ventricle.
|
|
|
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The CT evaluation showed that the middle level within each group was the most prone to adhesion formation. As a substitute, PTFE seemed to be less adhesive to the posterior surface of the sternum. In 11 of 18 patients there was only a slight scar tissue plane between the sternum and the patch (peak sign), and only 3 of 18 patients showed significant adhesions (flat sign) compared with the values in the PGA group: 3 of 17 and 9 of 17, which were quite similar to those in the control group. The key ratio, which reflects the individual degree of adhesion formation also pointed statistically to the advantage of PTFE over PGA as a pericardial substitute (p < 0.001) (Fig 4 ). Thirteen of the 18 patients (72%) in the PTFE group also had a clear free space between the epicardium and the patch compared with 6 of 17 (35%) in the PGA group. The detailed results regarding the substitutes are presented in Table 2.
|
|
| Comment |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This survey supports the notion that CT, a technique relying on new technology, is appropriate and seems to serve as a good and reliable modality for evaluating the grade of retrosternal adhesion formation subsequent to open heart operation. Comparison of two well-defined pericardium substitutes revealed the superiority of expanded PTFE membrane for use in patches after cardiac operations. The convenience of the PTFE membrane relative to PGA mesh was established in the light of minor adhesion tendencies both retrosternally and between the patch and the epicardium.
The possibilities of assessing adhesions after cardiac operation are limited. A lateral chest roentgenogram to assess the presence of a retrosternal space is suggested as being somewhat indicative [6]. The parietal pericardium consists of mesothelial cells as well as a fibrous part enveloping the heart and great vessels. The pericardial sac is mostly outlined by epicardial and pericardial fat, and this permits visualization of the pericardium with CT and magnetic resonance imaging. The pericardium is visualized in 95% to 98% by CT and is best seen along the anterior aspect of the ventricular surface of the heart [16]. Duvernoy and colleagues [9], evaluating the accuracy of CT and magnetic resonance for imaging postoperative adhesions subsequent to cardiac operation and before reoperation, found that CT was superior to magnetic resonance imaging for detecting retrosternal adhesions. The findings at CT were in accordance with those found at operation regarding postoperative retrosternal adhesions in the cranial retrosternal space in 14 of 15 patients, and in the caudal retrosternal space in 12 of 15 patients. This possibility of visualizing the retrosternal fat replaced by scar tissue with CT is in accordance with the findings of Silverman and Harell [16], who considered that the normal pericardium is best visualized on CT in sections through the ventricles, where epicardial and pericardial fat is most abundant. Intrapericardial adhesions could not be detected responsively by CT, however. These previous results, indicating that CT evaluation and operative findings go hand in hand regarding retrosternal adhesions, allow us to assume that our results will also be of clinical value when planning cardiac reoperations.
The number of actual reoperations involving patients with previously implanted PTFE pericardial substitutes is gradually increasing, and experiences are mostly encouraging relative to those acquired with other previously used substitutes. Harada and colleagues [2] used PTFE as a pericardial substitute in 61 children with congenital heart disease, 23 of whom underwent reoperation. The membrane could be removed easily, and the anterior surface of the heart beneath it was covered with a thin layer of fibrous tissue that obscured the fine surface features but allowed visualization of the principal cardiac structures. Jacobs and colleagues [15] have recently conducted a multicenter observational program on the use of PTFE, inserting this membrane in 1,085 patients. Reoperations were performed safely and effectively on 105 patients. No problematic adhesions were observed between the membrane and the heart or between the membrane and the chest wall and the rate of injury at resternotomy (1%) was low compared with those previously reported in the literature.
The low adhesive response of the PTFE material may be attributable to its small pore size, which prevents cellular penetration and therefore, provides a safe plane for dissection while inducing a minimum amount of reaction and adhesions. Conversely, absorbable PGA mesh has large pores, which may permit free migration of cells and nutrients through it. This helps us understand the contribution of exchange to adhesion formation. Furthermore the absorbative property of PGA induces a pronounced fibroproliferative reaction, and hence also a dense adhesion zone around it.
In conclusion, by CT evaluation the PTFE membrane seemed to be less adhesive to the posterior surface of the sternum compared to PGA, thus offering the possibility of avoiding cardiac injury during subsequent reoperative sternotomy. Insertion of the PTFE membrane is not a substitute for primary closure of the pericardium, however, or of meticulous surgical techniques. The variable findings suggestive of adhesions obtained by CT indicate a need for further studies to assess the role of the latter in the preoperative assessment of retrosternal adhesions and to predict possible difficulties that are postponed when planning redo cardiac operation.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
., Larsson S.G., Hansson H.E. CT and MR evaluation of pericardial and retrosternal adhesions after cardiac surgery. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991;15:555-560.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
I. Yoshioka, Y. Saiki, A. Ichinose, K. Takase, S. Takahashi, T. Ohashi, M. Sato, and K. Tabayashi Tagged cine magnetic resonance imaging with a finite element model can predict the severity of retrosternal adhesions prior to redo cardiac surgery J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2009; 137(4): 957 - 962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Saha, W. McEwan, F. A Frizelle, and H. Singh Limiting Pericardial Adhesions after Coronary Artery Bypass: Experimental Study Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, March 1, 2004; 12(1): 61 - 64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Katayama, T. Masui, S. Kobayashi, T. Ito, H. Sakahara, A. Nozaki, and H. Kabasawa Evaluation of Pelvic Adhesions Using Multiphase and Multislice MR Imaging with Kinematic Display Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2001; 177(1): 107 - 110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Leprince, M. Rahmati, N. Bonnet, V. Bors, A. Rama, Ph. Leger, I. Gandjbakhch, and A. Pavie Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene membranes to wrap surfaces of circulatory support devices in patients undergoing bridge to heart transplantation Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2001; 19(3): 302 - 306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |