Comparison of Spinal Cord Protection Utilizing Left Atrial‐Femoral with Femoral‐Femoral Bypass in Patients with Traumatic Rupture of the Aortic Isthmus

Introduction Postoperative paraplegia remains a dreaded complication of repair of traumatic rupture of the aortic isthmus. Claims have been made that left atrial‐femoral bypass provides better spinal cord protection. To test the hypothesis that left atrial‐femoral bypass is better than femoral vein‐to‐femoral artery bypass in regard to postoperative paraplegia, we concurrently compared the two techniques. Methods We compared the occurrence of paraplegia in 18 patients whose ruptures were repaired utilizing left atrial‐femoral bypass with 10,000 units of systemic heparin (group A) and 72 patients with femoral‐femoral bypass with heparin 300 units/kg and an oxygenator (group B) operated on between January 1995 and July 2004. Results The mortality rate was 5.6% (5/90), with no statistical difference between the two groups. Postoperative paraplegia was present in three (16.7%) group A patients and five group B (6.9%) patients. However, the specific etiology of the neurologic defect was not clear, as one patient’s paraplegia was transient following a period of cardiac arrest, and four others had had neurologic injuries prior to the aortic repair. Median aortic cross‐clamp times were shorter in group A (34 minutes vs. 49 minutes). No patient required reexploration for bleeding, and no patient developed a graft infection. Conclusions Paraplegia rates were higher in the left atrial‐femoral group, but the difference was not statistically significant. This occurred despite the decreased cross‐clamp times in this group. In patients undergoing repair of traumatic rupture of the aortic isthmus, left atrial‐femoral bypass does not provide better spinal cord protection than femoral‐femoral bypass.