Transapical total aortic arch replacement with three-branched endograft for penetrating aortic ulcer.

An 80-year-old man with a chronic penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer was not a candidate for open surgical repair owing to the presence of diffuse vascular atherosclerosis and a deep ulcerative lesion originating at the level of the aortic arch concavity. No appropriate endovascular landing zone was present in arch zones 1 or 2. However, a totally endovascular branched arch repair involving transapical delivery of the three branches was successful.

Intercostal artery's access for type II endoleak embolization.

Endoleaks represent a main issue of endovascular approach of thoracic aorta diseases and their treatment continue to be challenging. According to some authors, type II endoleaks sustained by intercostal arteries should not be treated because of the technical difficulties. However, the persistence of a pressurized aneurysmal may confer an ongoing risk of enlargement and/or aortic rupture. We describe the successful treatment of type II endoleak in 2 patients with an intercostal artery's access. In both cases, the endoleak was discovered during follow-up and was treated with its direct coil embolization under local anaesthesia.

Inner branched complex aortic repair outcomes from a national multicenter registry using the E-xtra design platform.

BACKGROUND: Complex aortic pathology still represents an open issue in contemporary endovascular management, with continuous technological advancement being introduced in practice over time aiming to improve outcomes. Thus far, the dualism between the fenestrated and branched configuration for visceral artery revascularization is yet unsolved, with each approach having its own pros and cons. The inner branched technology for endovascular aneurysm repair (iBEVAR) aims to take the best out of both strategies, offering wide applicability and stable bridging stent sealing. The objective of this study was to evaluate the early outcomes obtained with a single manufacturer custom-made inner-branched endograft in a multicenter Italian experience. METHODS: All patients consecutively treated with E-xtra design devices in three Italian facilities were enrolled. Anatomic characteristics and perioperative data were analyzed. The main objective was to asses technical and clinical success after iBEVAR. Secondary end points were overall survival, aortic-related mortality, target visceral vessel (TVV) patency, and freedom from target vessel instability during follow-up. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2021, 45 patients were treated with an E-xtra design device revascularizing at least one visceral vessel through an inner branch. The mean age at the time of the procedure was 71.1 ± 9.3 years and 77.8% were males. The total number of target visceral arteries to be bridged with an inner branch was 159. The extent of aortic repair was thoracoabdominal in 91.1% of the cases. Technical success was achieved in 93.3% of the procedures (42/45) with all failures owing to a type I endoleak at final angiography. Each TVV was successfully connected to the graft's main body as planned without complications. Following their intervention, five patients developed spinal cord ischemia and in three of these cases symptoms persisted after discharge (6.7%). At 30 days clinical success was 93.3% (42/45). No death as well as no TVV thrombosis occurred within 30 days from the primary procedures. The mean follow-up was 22.8 ± 14.2 months. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival and TVV patency at 36 months were 83.9% and 95.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Inner branches seem to be a promising technology in the complex aortic repair landscape, with an applicability ranging from type II thoracoabdominal aneurysm to type I endoleak repair after infrarenal endografting. Whether iBEVAR could offer results comparable with those provided by fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair in terms of target vessel patency and stent stability is yet to be established and further studies are, therefore, needed.

Prognostic risk factors for loss of patency after femoropopliteal bailout stenting with dual-component stent: results from the TIGRIS Italian Multicenter Registry.

PURPOSE: To identify the risk factors associated with patency loss after bailout stenting with third-generation hybrid heparin-bonded nitinol stent of the femoropopliteal segment. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, single-arm registry including 156 patients (50 females, mean age 72 ± 11 years) subjected, from February 2017 to December 2018, to provisional stenting with Gore Tigris vascular stent of the distal superficial femoral artery, with or without involvement of the popliteal artery, in 9 different centers. The 194 lesions, with Rutherford score ≥ 3, were stented in case of recoil, dissection or residual stenosis not responding to percutaneous trans-luminal angioplasty (PTA). The follow-up (FU) was performed with clinical evaluation and duplex ultrasound (DUS) at 1, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: The primary patency rate was 99(95%CI 98-100)% at 1 month, 86(80-92)% at 6 months and 81(74-88)% at-12 months. After patency loss, 13/23 (56.5%) patients were re-treated, yielding a primary assisted patency of 91(86-96)% at 6 months and 88(82-94)% at 12 months and a secondary patency of 94(90-98)% at 6 months and 90(84-95)% at 12 months. Rutherford score ≥ 4 (p = 0.03) and previous severe treatments (p = 0.01) were identified as risk factors for early patency loss during FU. The involvement of the popliteal artery was not an independent risk factor for loss of patency. CONCLUSIONS: The bailout stenting of the femoropopliteal segment with third-generation nitinol stents is a safe and effective option in case of recoil, dissection or residual stenosis not responding to PTA. Critical limb ischemia and history of previous major treatment at the same level are significant prognostic factors for patency loss during FU.

Anal self-massage in the treatment of acute anal fissure: a randomized prospective study.

BACKGROUND: An anal fissure (AF) is a tear in the epithelial lining of the anal canal. This is a very common condition, but the choice of treatment is unclear. The use of anal dilators is effective, economic, and safe. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of two conservative treatments, the use of anal dilators or a finger for anal dilatation, in reducing anal pressure and resolving anal fissures. METHODS: Fifty patients with a clinical diagnosis of AF were randomly assigned to one of the treatments, self-massage of the anal sphincter (group A, 25 patients) or passive dilatation using dilators (group B, 25 patients). All patients were evaluated at baseline, at the end of treatment, and after 12 weeks and 6 months. Pain was measured using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: After the treatment, 60% of patients treated with dilators and 80% of patients treated with anal self-massage using a finger showed disappearance of their anal fissures. A comparison between signs and symptoms reported by the patients in the two groups showed a statistically significant reduction in anal pain (group A, P=0.0001; group B, P=0.0001) and bleeding after defecation (group A, P=0.001, group B, P=0.001). At 6 months after treatment, a significantly greater reduction in anal pain was observed in Group A compared to Group B (P=0.02). CONCLUSION: The use of anal self-massage with a finger appears to induce a better resolution of acute anal fissure than do anal dilators, and in a shorter time.

Low energy manual anal stretch: an approach in the treatment of chronic anal fissure.

BACKGROUND: Anal fissure is a tear in the epitelial lining of the anal canal. This is a very common anorectal disorder, but the choice of treatment is unclear. Sphincterotomy is effective but it is affected by a high risk of fecal incontinence. Manual anal stretch is aN efficacious, economic and safe maneuver. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of anal stretch in resolving chronic anal fissures. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with a clinical diagnosis of chronic anal fissure were submitted to anal stretch. All patients were submitted to anal stretch, after clinical evaluation. All patients were studied at basal time, and at 7 days, 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment. RESULTS: At 3 months and 6 months after the anal stretch, 88% and 94% of patients showed a resolution of anal fissures and only 12% have relapsed at 12 months, without complications, such as faecal incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: The anal stretch appears to induce better resolution of chronic anal fissure with a very low risk of fecal incontinence.

Comparative outcome of stapled trans-anal rectal resection and macrogol in the treatment of defecation disorders.

AIM: To prospectively assess the efficacy and safety of stapled trans-anal rectal resection (STARR) compared to standard conservative treatment, and whether preoperative symptoms and findings at defecography and anorectal manometry can predict the outcome of STARR. METHODS: Thirty patients (Female, 28; age: 51 ± 9 years) with rectocele or rectal intussusception, a defecation disorder, and functional constipation were submitted for STARR. Thirty comparable patients (Female, 30; age 53 ± 13 years), who presented with symptoms of rectocele or rectal intussusception and were treated with macrogol, were assessed. Patients were interviewed with a standardized questionnaire at study enrollment and 38 ± 18 mo after the STARR procedure or during macrogol treatment. A responder was defined as an absence of the Rome III diagnostic criteria for functional constipation. Defecography and rectoanal manometry were performed before and after the STARR procedure in 16 and 12 patients, respectively. RESULTS: After STARR, 53% of patients were responders; during conservative treatment, 75% were responders. After STARR, 30% of the patients reported the use of laxatives, 17% had intermittent anal pain, 13% had anal leakage, 13% required digital facilitation, 6% experienced defecatory urgency, 6% experienced fecal incontinence, and 6% required re-intervention. During macrogol therapy, 23% of the patients complained of abdominal bloating and 13% of borborygmi, and 3% required digital facilitation. No preoperative symptom, defecographic, or manometric finding predicted the outcome of STARR. Post-operative defecography showed a statistically significant reduction (P < 0.05) of the rectal diameter and rectocele. The post-operative anorectal manometry showed that anal pressure and rectal sensitivity were not significantly modified, and that rectal compliance was reduced (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: STARR is not better and is less safe than macrogol in the treatment of defecation disorders. It could be considered as an alternative therapy in patients unresponsive to macrogol.