Table 1 Trends in sites of iatrogenic aortic dissection after cardiac surgery in literature
From: Iatrogenic aortic dissection after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: a case report
|  | Gott et al. [10] (N = 27/11,145) 1982–1988 | Still et al. [11] (N = 24/14,877) 1980–1990 | Leontyev et al. [12] (N = 36/55,279) 1995–2010 | Stanger et al. [5] (N = 103/68,249) 2006–2010 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1- Intraoperative | ||||
|  | (N = 27) | (N = 20) | (N = 31) | (N = 24) |
 Aortic cannulation | 10 (37 %)a | 10 (50 %)a | 12 (38 %)a | 7 (29.1 %)a |
 Cardioplegia cannula | 5 (18.5 %) | 0 (0 %) | 7 (22.6 %) | 4 (16.7 %) |
 Aortic cross-clamp | 4 (14.8 %) | 8 (40 %) | 4 (12.9 %) | 7 (29.1 %)a |
 Proximal anastomosis | 2 (7.4 %) | 1 (5 %) | 1 (3.2 %) | 5 (20.8 %) |
 Direct aortic injury | 0 (0 %) | 1 (5 %) | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) |
 Unknown | 2 (7.4 %) | 0 (0 %) | 5 (16.1 %) | 1 (4.2 %) |
2- Early Postoperative: | ||||
|  |  | (N = 4) | (N = 5) | (N = 12) |
 Aortic cannulation |  | 3 (75 %)a | 2 (40 %)a | 0 (0 %) |
 Cardioplegia cannula |  | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) | 1 (8.3 %) |
 Aortic cross-clamp |  | 1 (25 %) | 0 (0 %) | 1 (8.3 %) |
 Proximal anastomosis |  | 0 (0 %) | 1 (20 %) | 8 (66.7 %)a |
 Aortotomy |  | 0 (0 %) | 0 (0 %) | 2 (16.7 %) |
 Unknown |  | 0 (0 %) | 2 (40 %)a | 0 (0 %) |
3- Late: Postoperative | ||||
 a) Acute | (N = 44) | |||
  Aortic cannulation |  |  |  | 1 (2.2 %) |
  Cardioplegia cannula |  |  |  | 0 (0 %) |
  Aortic cross-clamp |  |  |  | 2 (4.5 %) |
  Proximal anastomosis |  |  |  | 10 (22.7 %) |
  Aortotomy |  |  |  | 24 (54.5 %)a |
  Unknown |  |  |  | 7 (15.9 %) |
b) Chronic | (N = 23) | |||
  Aortic cannulation |  |  |  | 2 (8.7 %) |
  Cardioplegia cannula |  |  |  | 0 (0 %) |
  Aortic cross-clamp |  |  |  | 0 (0 %) |
  Proximal anastomosis |  |  |  | 9 (39.1 %)a |
  Aortotomy |  |  |  | 11 (47.8 %) |
  Unknown |  |  |  | 1 (4.3 %) |