No abstract

Both carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid artery stenting (CAS) are common treatments for carotid artery stenosis. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared CEA to CAS in the treatment of carotid artery stenosis. These studies have suggested that CAS is more strongly associated with periprocedural stroke; however, CEA is more strongly associated with myocardial infarction. Published longterm outcomes report that CAS and CEA are similar. A reduction in complications associated with CAS has also been demonstrated over time. The symptomatic status of the patient and history of previous CEA or cervical radiotherapy are significant factors when deciding between CEA or CAS. Numerous carotid artery stents are available, varying in material, shape and design but with minimal evidence comparing stent types. The role of cerebral protection devices is unclear. Dual antiplatelet therapy is typically prescribed to prevent in-stent thrombosis, and however, evidence comparing periprocedural and postprocedural antiplatelet therapy is scarce, resulting in inconsistent guidelines. Several RCTs are underway that will aim to clarify some of these uncertainties. In this review, we summarize the development of varying techniques of CAS and studies comparing CAS to CEA as treatment options for carotid artery stenosis. K E Y W O R D Scarotid artery atherosclerosis, carotid artery stenosis, carotid artery stenting, carotid endarterectomy, stroke, stroke prevention | 319 LAMANNA et AL.

No abstract

Summary Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are a common cause of back pain and disability and are usually osteoporotic in nature. Therapy aims to adequately control pain and allow early mobilisation and return of function while preventing additional fractures. A proportion of patients do not achieve adequate pain relief using conservative measures alone. Unwanted adverse effects from medications may also ensue. Vertebroplasty represents an alternative treatment option for VCFs. Patients with acute VCFs (≤6 weeks old) may gain the most benefit from vertebroplasty as healed fractures are not as amenable to cement injection. High‐quality studies have reported conflicting results regarding the use of vertebroplasty in the treatment of acute VCFs. Despite high‐quality evidence, varying study designs and heterogenous patient cohorts make interpretation of this data difficult. Only one sham‐controlled randomised controlled trial (RCT) has evaluated vertebroplasty exclusively in patients with acute VCFs, reporting favourable results. Pooled data from RCTs also suggest vertebroplasty to be safe. This article provides a concise and critical review of the current literature regarding vertebroplasty for the treatment of acute VCFs.

No abstract