Comment on “Non-Functional Carotid Body Tumors in Patients without Somatic Mutations May Be Considered for Non-Operative Management”

Bobadilla-Rosado, Luis O.; Anaya‐Ayala, Javier E.; Teran-Ellis, Santiago Mier y; Contreras-Jimenez, Emanuel; Hinojosa, Carlos A.

doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2023.03.004

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as highlighted by Bozzani et al 9 in their commentary on our work, 2 a reliable screening mechanism for tracking the cytologic progression of CBTs is currently lacking, reaffirming surgical excision as the gold standard for an accurate diagnosis. 10,11 Moreover, our group’s quality of life assessment revealed a diminished health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in CBT patients, 12 emphasizing the significance of surgical intervention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Retrocarotid dissection technique compared to the caudocranial approach for the surgical treatment of carotid body tumors: A 15-year experience

Bobadilla-Rosado,

Anaya-Ayala,

Santos-Chavez

et al. 2024

Vasc Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Carotid body tumors are rare neoplasms with malignant potential. We aim to follow up on our initial experience published in 2015 and compare the occurrence of complications and postoperative outcomes with the use of retrocarotid dissection (RCD) against the standard caudocranial (SCCD) technique. Methods: This was an observational, case–control study in which we analyzed all of the carotid body tumor resections performed from 1986 to 2022. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used accordingly. Statistical analysis was performed on Stata 17. Results: A total of 181 surgical procedures were included, mean age was 56 years (± 13.63), and 168 (93%) were performed in women. The mean medio-lateral diameter was larger in the RCD group (2.85 ± 1.57 cm vs 1.93 ±1.85 cm; p = 0.002) and presurgical embolization was more frequently performed in the SCCD group (27.5% vs 0.7%; p < 0.001). A total of 40 (22.09%) resections were performed using the SCCD technique. In contrast, in 141 (77.91%) procedures the RCD technique was used. The mean surgical time in the RCD group was lower (197.37 ± 70.56 min vs 232 ± 98.34 min; p = 0.01). No statistically significant difference was found between SCCD and RCD in terms of vascular lesions ( n = 20 [11.04%], 15% vs 9%, respectively; p = 0.36), transient or permanent nerve injuries (25% vs 33%, respectively; p = 0.31), or mean intraoperative bleeding (SCCD: 689.95 ± 680.05 mL vs RCD: 619.64 ± 837.94 mL; p > 0.05). Conclusions: RCD appears to be a safe and equivalent alternative to the standard caudocranial approach in terms of intraoperative bleeding or vascular lesions, with a sustained, significant decrease in surgical time.

show abstract