{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.06632324533161622, 'fraction_numerical': 0.062459755312298776, 'mean_word_length': 5.142292490118577, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
P.098 Primary closure versus expansile patch angioplasty for carotid endarterectomy: a single center series

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a common treatment option for patients presenting with carotid stenosis; however, the optimal method for arterial closure remains unclear. Therefore, we examined our single center series to compare primary closure versus patch angioplasty for carotid endarterectomy. Methods: We reviewed all patients who underwent CEA from 2008 to 2016. Closure method was entirely based on the surgeon style (i.e., all patients treated by vascular surgeons underwent patch angioplasty and all individuals managed by neurosurgeons undergone primary closure). Data were reported as frequencies and outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 713 patients were included (349 in the primary closure group and 364 in the patch group). Underlying baseline characteristics were similar between both groups. The risk of transient ischemic attack (OR, 7.08; 95%CI, 0.41-2.84; P=0.872), stroke (OR, 1.14; 95%CI, 0.58-2.22; P=0.697), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.39-3.07; P=0.851), cranial nerve palsy (OR, 1.79; 95%CI, 0.65-4.91; P=0.248), and post-operative neck hematoma (OR, 1.04; 95%CI, 0.48-2.24; P=0.923) didn’t differ significantly between the two closure options. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that primary closure and expansile angioplasty have similar safety and efficacy profiles as treatment closure options among patients undergoing CEA.