American journal of surgery · 2014
Secondary modification into aortouniiliac configuration to salvage failed endovascular aneurysm repair is safe and effective but not associated with higher intervention rates during long-term follow-up.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Prusa Alexander M, Wibmer Andreas G, Schoder Maria, Funovics Martin, Lammer Johannes, Polterauer Peter, Kretschmer Georg, Teufelsbauer Harald
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Reports of secondary modifications into aortouniiliac configuration to salvage-failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are limited. We evaluated long-term results after these procedures and compared them with those after primary aortouniiliac endografting (AUE).
METHODS: A retrospective review of all EVAR performed from March 1995 until July 2011 was conducted. Patients were included when primary AUE (group I) or modification into aortouniiliac configuration (group II) was done.
RESULTS: Data analysis obtained 27 group I and 23 group II patients. Salvage of failed EVAR could be achieved in 96% of group II patients, and mortality was zero. Frequency of adverse events and amount of interventions to maintain aneurysm exclusion were not increased after secondary AUE. Kaplan-Meier estimates for long-term survival between groups were comparable (P = .36).
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary AUE allows correction of graft-related endoleaks potentially leading to late aneurysm rupture. Complications and adverse events throughout long-term follow-up were not necessarily increased when compared with primary AUE.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all EVAR performed from March 1995 until July 2011 was conducted. Patients were included when primary AUE (group I) or modification into aortouniiliac configuration (group II) was done.
RESULTS: Data analysis obtained 27 group I and 23 group II patients. Salvage of failed EVAR could be achieved in 96% of group II patients, and mortality was zero. Frequency of adverse events and amount of interventions to maintain aneurysm exclusion were not increased after secondary AUE. Kaplan-Meier estimates for long-term survival between groups were comparable (P = .36).
CONCLUSIONS: Secondary AUE allows correction of graft-related endoleaks potentially leading to late aneurysm rupture. Complications and adverse events throughout long-term follow-up were not necessarily increased when compared with primary AUE.