MedElevator
Войти в исследования Annals of vascular surgery · 2025
Perioperative and Midterm Outcomes of Branched or Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Type 1A Endoleak after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pierie Stijn L R, Pierie Maurice E N, Veeger Nic J G M, Schouten Olaf
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The treatment of a failing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) due to loss of proximal sealing is challenging. Branched or fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (B/FEVAR) offers a promising endovascular solution. This study evaluates B/FEVAR outcomes for managing type 1A endoleak after EVAR.
METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent B/FEVAR surgery to treat a type 1A endoleak after EVAR at a large teaching hospital between 2019 and 2024 were included in this study. Outcomes analyzed included aneurysm-related mortality, overall survival, technical success, endoleaks, aneurysm sac dynamics, reinterventions, target vessel patency, target vessel instability, and other complications. Regular follow-up after B/FEVAR surgery included imaging at 1, 6, and 12 months, and annually thereafter.
RESULTS: Among 24 patients (96% male, median age 73 (range: 66-80), the median interval between EVAR and B/FEVAR was 6.6 years (range: 2-11). No aneurysm-related mortality was observed during follow-up. The median follow-up was 20 months (range: 3-67), and overall survival was 96%. The primary technical success rate was 88%, and the assisted primary technical success rate was 92%. Type 2 endoleaks were observed in 33% of patients, while type 3 endoleaks occurred in 13% of patients. Aneurysm sac regression during follow-up was reported in 17%, stabilization in 71%, and expansion in 13% of patients. Reinterventions were required in 25% of patients. Primary target vessel patency and assisted primary target vessel patency were 95% and 97%. Target vessel instability was 8%.
CONCLUSION: B/FEVAR appears to be a safe, and effective option for managing type 1A endoleaks after prior EVAR based on midterm outcomes.
METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent B/FEVAR surgery to treat a type 1A endoleak after EVAR at a large teaching hospital between 2019 and 2024 were included in this study. Outcomes analyzed included aneurysm-related mortality, overall survival, technical success, endoleaks, aneurysm sac dynamics, reinterventions, target vessel patency, target vessel instability, and other complications. Regular follow-up after B/FEVAR surgery included imaging at 1, 6, and 12 months, and annually thereafter.
RESULTS: Among 24 patients (96% male, median age 73 (range: 66-80), the median interval between EVAR and B/FEVAR was 6.6 years (range: 2-11). No aneurysm-related mortality was observed during follow-up. The median follow-up was 20 months (range: 3-67), and overall survival was 96%. The primary technical success rate was 88%, and the assisted primary technical success rate was 92%. Type 2 endoleaks were observed in 33% of patients, while type 3 endoleaks occurred in 13% of patients. Aneurysm sac regression during follow-up was reported in 17%, stabilization in 71%, and expansion in 13% of patients. Reinterventions were required in 25% of patients. Primary target vessel patency and assisted primary target vessel patency were 95% and 97%. Target vessel instability was 8%.
CONCLUSION: B/FEVAR appears to be a safe, and effective option for managing type 1A endoleaks after prior EVAR based on midterm outcomes.