Vertebral and carotid artery anomalies in patients with aberrant right subclavian arteries
- 175 Downloads
There is little published evidence regarding the patterns and prevalence of vertebral artery (VA) and common carotid artery (CCA) anomalies in patients with an aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSCA).
To study the patterns and prevalence of VA and CCA anomalies in patients with ARSCA.
Materials and methods
In a 2-year period we reviewed the children referred with suspected vascular ring who had undergone multidetector-row CT. Patients with ARSCA were reviewed for VA and CCA patterns and their prevalence and relevance were calculated.
In total, 102 patients with ARSCA were identified. VA anomalies were present in 16 patients (15.7%), and CCA anomalies (common carotid trunk) in 21 patients (20.6%). In some patients with VA anomalies, the right VA arose from the right CCA and in some the left VA arose from the aortic arch. When the left VA arose from the aortic arch it was situated between the left CCA and the left SCA or between the left SCA and the ARSCA.
If neurointerventionalists understand these potential anomalies and their prevalence, time and contrast medium could be saved when catheterizing the VA and CCA in patients with ARSCA.
KeywordsAberrant right subclavian artery Vertebral artery Carotid artery CT Children
- 4.Nathan H, Seidel MR (1983) The association of a retroesophageal right subclavian artery, a right-sided terminating thoracic duct, and a left vertebral artery of aortic origin: anatomical and clinical considerations. Acta Anat (Basel) 117:362–373Google Scholar
- 5.Jan SL, Hwang B, Fu YC et al (2005) A rare vascular ring caused by an aberrant right subclavian artery concomitant with the common carotid trunk: a report of two cases. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 28:1–4Google Scholar
- 7.Lee T, Tsai IC, Fu YC et al (2006) Using multidetector-row CT in neonates with complex congenital heart disease to replace diagnostic cardiac catheterization for anatomical investigation: initial experiences in technical and clinical feasibility. Pediatr Radiol 36:1273–1282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar