Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: 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.
摘要：
■颈动脉体瘤是具有恶性潜能的罕见肿瘤。我们的目标是随访我们在2015年发表的初步经验，并比较使用后颈动脉夹层（RCD）与标准的尾颅（SCCD）技术的并发症发生率和术后结局。
■这是一个观察，病例对照研究，我们分析了1986年至2022年进行的所有颈动脉体瘤切除术。相应地使用参数和非参数检验。对Stata17进行统计分析。
■共包括181例外科手术，平均年龄56岁(±13.63),168例(93%)在女性中进行。RCD组的平均内外侧直径较大（2.85±1.57cmvs1.93±1.85cm；p=0.002），SCCD组的术前栓塞频率更高（27.5％vs0.7％；p<0.001）。使用SCCD技术共进行了40例（22.09％）切除。相比之下,在141例（77.91%）手术中使用了RCD技术。RCD组的平均手术时间较低（197.37±70.56分钟vs232±98.34分钟；p=0.01）。SCCD和RCD在血管病变方面无统计学差异（n=20[11.04%]，15%对9%，分别为；p=0.36)，短暂性或永久性神经损伤（25%vs33%，分别为；p=0.31)，或平均术中出血（SCCD：689.95±680.05mL，RCD：619.64±837.94mL；p>0.05）。
■就术中出血或血管病变而言，RCD似乎是标准尾颅入路的安全且等效的替代方法，一个持续的，手术时间显著减少。
■这是一个观察，病例对照研究，我们分析了1986年至2022年进行的所有颈动脉体瘤切除术。相应地使用参数和非参数检验。对Stata17进行统计分析。
■共包括181例外科手术，平均年龄56岁(±13.63),168例(93%)在女性中进行。RCD组的平均内外侧直径较大（2.85±1.57cmvs1.93±1.85cm；p=0.002），SCCD组的术前栓塞频率更高（27.5％vs0.7％；p<0.001）。使用SCCD技术共进行了40例（22.09％）切除。相比之下,在141例（77.91%）手术中使用了RCD技术。RCD组的平均手术时间较低（197.37±70.56分钟vs232±98.34分钟；p=0.01）。SCCD和RCD在血管病变方面无统计学差异（n=20[11.04%]，15%对9%，分别为；p=0.36)，短暂性或永久性神经损伤（25%vs33%，分别为；p=0.31)，或平均术中出血（SCCD：689.95±680.05mL，RCD：619.64±837.94mL；p>0.05）。
■就术中出血或血管病变而言，RCD似乎是标准尾颅入路的安全且等效的替代方法，一个持续的，手术时间显著减少。
