RECENT FINDINGS: The total number of personalised external aortic root support (PEARS) operations is now approaching 700 in 30 centres in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland and Slovakia. There are continued reports of stability of aortic dimensions and aortic valve function with the only exceptions known being where the surgeon has deviated from the instructions for use of the device. The median root diameter of Marfan patients having PEARS was 47 mm suggesting that the existing criterion of 50 mm is due for reconsideration. The peri-operative mortality currently estimated to be less than 0.3%. The first recipient remains alive and well after 18 years. The use of PEARS as an adjunct to the Ross operation to support the pulmonary autograft is being explored in several centres.
SUMMARY: The operation requires proctoring and adherence to a strict operative protocol and with those precautions excellent results are attained. The evidence and opinions provided in the cited publications indicate that PEARS is a proven and successful prophylactic operation for aortic root aneurysm.
CASE PRESENTATION: This is a case of a 37-year-old, right-hand dominant, Malay man who fell approximately 6 meters from a rambutan tree and his left arm hit the tree trunk on his way down. He was an active tobacco smoker with a 20 pack year smoking history. On clinical examination, Doppler signals over his radial and ulnar arteries were poor. He proceeded with emergency computed tomography angiogram of his left upper limb which showed non-opacification of contrast at the distal left brachial artery just before the bifurcation of the left brachial artery at his left elbow joint. Radiographs and computed tomography scan also showed undisplaced fracture of left lateral epicondyle and radial head with no evidence of elbow dislocation. He subsequently underwent left brachial to brachial artery bypass which was done using reversed saphenous vein graft and recovered well. His fractures were treated using 90 degree long posterior splint for 2 weeks and he was then allowed early range of motion of the left elbow. This patient developed left elbow dislocation 6 weeks postoperatively. Closed manipulative reduction of his left elbow resulted in incomplete reduction. The functional outcome of his left elbow was limited with a range of motion of left elbow of 0-45 degrees. However, he was not keen for surgery to stabilize his elbow joint during his last follow-up 6 months post injury.
CONCLUSIONS: This is an uncommon case of brachial artery injury in a civilian caused by blunt trauma associated with occult elbow instability/dislocation and minor fractures around the elbow joint. The treatment of brachial artery injury with clinical evidence of distal ischemia is surgical revascularization. The possibility of elbow instability and dislocation need to be considered in all cases of brachial artery injury because early radiographs and computed tomography scans may be normal. Short-term posterior splint immobilization is not sufficient to prevent recurrent dislocations.