抄録
We compared patients who underwent carotid endarterectomy (CEA) using two-way and three-way internal shunts and discussed which shunt was more appropriate and effective for surgeons. Eighty-two patients (mean 69.5 ± 6.1 years old, mean degrees of stenosis 79.6 ± 10.4%) who had undergone CEA by our routine shunting policy were examined concerning the difference of Sundt and Pruitt-Inahara (P-I) shunts in clinical use. Carotid clamping time for the P-I shunt was over 2 minutes longer than that by Sundt in either split or conventional continuous arteriotomy (p < 0.001). The proportions of cases with multiple trials of either arteriotomy or insertion of a shunt tube, cases detected more than one high-intensity spot on diffusion-weighted images of magnetic resonance imaging after CEA, and cases detected postoperative intimal flaps detected by multi-detector CT angiography showed no significant differences between the two shunt groups. The two-way Sundt shunt was quicker than the three-way P-I shunt in placement with no remarkable problems. Split arteriotomy was not useful in shortening the placement time for either Sundt or P-I shunt tubes, compared with continuous arteriotomy. A simple two-way shunt with easy handling like the Sundt shunt would be also appropriate to choose in selective shunting under the unfamiliarity of treating shunts.
