Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Vasc Surg ; 77(1): 28-36.e3, 2023 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36070845

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare midterm results of EndoAnchors in EndoSuture aneurysm repair (ESAR) versus fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) in short neck abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). METHODS: All patients who underwent an ESAR procedure for a short neck AAA at our center between September 2017 and May 2020 were considered for analysis. To form the control group, preoperative computed tomography angiography of patients who underwent FEVAR for juxtarenal AAA between April 2012 and May 2020 were reviewed and patients who met short neck criteria selected. A propensity-matched score on neck length and neck diameter was calculated, resulting in 18 matched pairs. AAA shrinkage, type Ia endoleaks (EL), AAA-related reinterventions, and AAA-related deaths were compared. RESULTS: The median AAA diameter was 54 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 52-61 mm) versus 58 mm (IQR, 53-63 mm) with a median neck length of 8 mm (IQR, 6-12 mm) vs 10 mm (IQR, 6-13 mm) in ESAR and FEVAR patients, respectively. Technical success was 100% in both groups. Procedural success was 94% in the ESAR group versus 100% in the FEVAR group. The median procedure duration was 138 mm (IQR, 113-182 mm) vs 240 mm (IQR, 199-293 mm) ( P < .001) and the median length of stay was 2 days (IQR, 2-3 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 6-7 days) (P < .001) in ESAR and FEVAR patients, respectively. No major hospital complications were observed in ESAR patients compared with two in FEVAR patients (11%) with one transient acute kidney injury and one transient paraplegia. The median follow-up was 23 months (IQR, 19-33 months) vs 36 months (IQR, 22-57 months) with 67% versus 61% AAA shrinkage in the ESAR and FEVAR groups, respectively (P = .73). No type Ia EL, proximal neck-related reinterventions, or AAA-related deaths were observed in either group. No AAA-related reintervention was observed in the ESAR group versus three reinterventions in the FEVAR group (P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: ESAR seems to be a safe technique with no major postoperative complications or reinterventions observed during follow-up. It seems to offer similar midterm results as FEVAR in terms of type Ia EL, aneurysm shrinkage, and aneurysm-related mortality. ESAR seems to be a good off-the-shelf alternative to FEVAR in case of technical constraints.


Assuntos
Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal , Implante de Prótese Vascular , Procedimentos Endovasculares , Humanos , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/diagnóstico por imagem , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/cirurgia , Aneurisma da Aorta Abdominal/complicações , Prótese Vascular/efeitos adversos , Implante de Prótese Vascular/efeitos adversos , Fatores de Risco , Resultado do Tratamento , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Fatores de Tempo , Estudos Retrospectivos , Desenho de Prótese , Endoleak/etiologia , Endoleak/cirurgia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA