Vascular handlebar syndrome with blunt injury of common femoral artery

Abstract

Summary: Vascular handlebar syndrome with blunt injury of the common femoral artery is a rare vascular trauma mechanism, with high possibility of being missed or delayed. We present two cases of vascular handlebar syndrome treated in our hospital and a systematic review of the literature using MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases. Literature review identified 20 similar cases. The median age of patients was 18 years, and in vast majority males in gender. In most cases, the common femoral artery injury was an intimal flap and lumen occlusion with intramural thrombosis followed by transection and intimal injury without occlusion or thrombosis. The median time between injury and diagnosis/treatment was half an hour. Clinical presentation ranged from asymptomatic to acute limb ischemia. The grade of acute ischemia was mostly Rutherford class I (n=14), while acute IIa (n=4), chronic ischemia (n=3), and no ischemia (n=1) were also noticed. The correct diagnosis was revealed by clinical examination only (n=1), or by the combination of clinical and imaging techniques including computed tomography angiography (n=7) and duplex ultrasonography (n=4) or both (n=10). Management of the handlebar trauma syndrome injuries was surgical in most cases. Outcome was favorable in all patients. Vascular handlebar syndrome is extremely rare and high suspicion is required for early diagnosis and definitive treatment, as the early management is effective and crucial for averting the devastating consequences. An individualized approach to the vascular trauma patient is to be applied with considerations taken to the age of the patient, the mechanism of the injury, the anatomy of the lesion, and symptomatology of the case.

Comparison of two bicycle handlebar trauma cases

“…One systemic literature review found that 18 out of 22 cases involving handlebar injuries to the CFA had presented with signs and symptoms of acute limb ischaemia, with such acute findings leading to a prompt diagnosis 24. However, such obvious clinical signs cannot be relied on completely, and a high index of suspicion may help yield the underlying diagnosis where clinical examination may not.…”