Clinical comparative analysis of 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration and Castor integrated branch stent techniques in treating type B aortic dissections with inadequate proximal landing zones.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the clinical effects of two distinct surgical approaches, namely 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration and Castor integrated branch stent techniques, in treating patients with Stanford type B aortic dissections (TBAD) characterized by inadequate proximal landing zones. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 84 patients with type B aortic dissection (TBAD) who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with left subclavian artery (LSA) reconstruction at our center from January 2022 to July 2023. Based on the different surgical approaches, the patients were divided into two groups: the group assisted by 3D printing for extracorporeal pre-fenestration (n = 44) and the group using the castor integrated branch stent (n = 40). Clinical indicators: including general patient information, operative time, surgical success rate, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, re-intervention rate, and mortality, as well as postoperative aortic remodeling, were compared between the two groups. The endpoint of this study is the post-TEVAR mortality rate in patients. RESULTS: The surgical success rate and device deployment success rate were 100% in both groups, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). However, the group assisted by 3D printing for extracorporeal pre-fenestration had a significantly longer operative time (184.20 ± 54.857 min) compared to the group using the castor integrated branch stent (152.75 ± 33.068 min), with a statistically significant difference (t = 3.215, p = 0.002, P < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of postoperative cerebral infarction and beak sign was significantly lower in the group assisted by 3D printing for extracorporeal pre-fenestration compared to the castor-integrated branch stent group, demonstrating statistical significance. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of other postoperative complication rates and aortic remodeling (P > 0.05). Notably, computed tomography angiography images revealed the expansion of the vascular true lumen and the reduction of the false lumen at three specified levels of the thoracic aorta. The follow-up duration did not show any statistically significant difference between the two groups (10.59 ± 4.52 vs. 9.08 ± 4.35 months, t = 1.561, p = 0.122 > 0.05). Throughout the follow-up period, neither group experienced new endoleaks, spinal cord injuries, nor limb ischemia. In the castor-integrated branch stent group, one patient developed a new distal dissection, prompting further follow-up. Additionally, there was one case of mortality due to COVID-19 in each group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of re-intervention rate and survival rate (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration TEVAR and castor-integrated branch stent techniques demonstrate good safety and efficacy in treating Stanford type B aortic dissection with inadequate proximal anchoring. The 3D printing-assisted extracorporeal pre-fenestration TEVAR technique has a lower incidence of postoperative cerebral infarction and beak sign, while the castor-integrated branch stent technique has advantages in operative time.

3D Printing-Assisted versus Conventional Extracorporeal Fenestration Tevar for Stanford Type B Arteries Dissection with Undesirable Proximal Anchoring Zone: Efficacy Analysis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the outcomes of two Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) techniques of Left Subclavian Artery (LSA) reconstruction for Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection (TBAD) patients with undesirable proximal anchoring zone. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients with TBAD who underwent either three dimensional (3D)-printing-assisted extracorporeal fenestration (n = 32) or conventional extracorporeal fenestration (n = 25) from December 2021 to January 2023. We compared their demographic characteristics, operative time, technical success rate, complication rate, secondary intervention rate, mortality rate, and aortic remodeling. RESULTS: Compared with the conventional group, the 3D-printing-assisted group had a significantly shorter operative time (147.84 ± 33.94 min vs. 223.40 ± 65.93 min, p < 0.001), a significantly lower rate of immediate endoleak (3.1% vs. 24%, p = 0.048) and a significantly higher rate of true lumen diameter expansion in the stent-graft segment (all p < 0.05), but a significantly longer stent graft modification time (37.63 ± 2.99 min vs. 28.4 ± 2.12 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in other outcomes between the two groups (p > 0.05). The degree of false lumen thrombosis was higher in the stent-graft segment than in the non-stent-graft segment in both groups and the difference was statistically significant (X2 = 5.390, 4.878; p = 0.02, 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques are safe and effective for TBAD with an undesirable proximal landing zone. The 3D-printing-assisted extracorporeal fenestration TEVAR technique has advantages in operative time, endoleak risk, and aortic remodeling, while the traditional extracorporeal fenestration TEVAR technique has advantages in stent modification.