The history of unilateral cerebral perfusion can be traced to the early 1980s [1]; however, this protection strategy had not gained popularity until the introduction of supra-aortic cannulation techniques [2]. In connection with the cannulation of a supra-aortic artery, regardless if it is the brachio-cephalic, subclavian or carotid artery, the execution of unilateral perfusion is very simple, fast and can be performed without any interruption of cerebral perfusion [2, 3]. Since then, the efficacy of unilateral versus bilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion is being continuously discussed, and no consensus seems to be in sight because of the existing heterogeneity of the perfusion and cerebral protection strategies, which could be demonstrated in a large multicentre series published in the Journal a few years ago [4]. This makes any attempt to strive for evidence-based recommendations very difficult, if not impossible, because as stated in this multicentre report mentioned above: ‘…the problem in conducting prospective multicentre trials on aortic arch surgery lies on the credo of particular aortic surgeons who develop a strong attachment to their distinct perfusion and temperature management protocol with which they achieve good clinical outcomes and are not willing to switch their routine for clinical trials’ [4].
Read full abstract