PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine how many patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are eligible for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed computed tomography (CT) angiograms obtained between January 2002 and June 2003 in 182 patients with suspected AAA. Indication for surgical or endovascular treatment was based on clinical and radiological criteria. The percentage of patients eligible for EVAR was evaluated. RESULTS: Out of a total of 182 patients with suspected AAA studied by CT angiography, after combined radiological-surgical assessment, 130 were considered eligible for surgical or endovascular treatment (71.4%). EVAR was indicated in 51 patients (39.3%, group A) and surgical repair was indicated in 79 patients (60.7%, group B). The reasons for ineligibility for EVAR were the following: unfavourable anatomy of the proximal neck in 41 patients (51.9%), diameter of the aneurysm sac >7 cm in 13 patients (16.4%), markedly tortuous/dilated iliac axis in six patients (7.6%), age <65 years in 17 patients (21.5%) and patient refusal in two cases (2.5%). There were no statistically significant differences in aneurysm diameter (52.7+/-0.8 versus 49.8+/-1.2 mm, p=ns), patients' age (73.2+/-1.2 versus 70.6+/-2.02 years, p=ns) or proximal neck length (2.95+/-1 versus 3.03+/-1.2 cm, p=ns) between groups A and B. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms through the placement of aortic stent-grafts has now become a viable alternative to open surgery. In recent years, the number of patients treated with EVAR has steadily risen as a result of increased physician experience, availability of new and more versatile devices and improvements in noninvasive imaging techniques. Unfavourable neck anatomy is the primary factor for exclusion from endovascular repair.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine how many patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are eligible for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed computed tomography (CT) angiograms obtained between January 2002 and June 2003 in 182 patients with suspected AAA. Indication for surgical or endovascular treatment was based on clinical and radiological criteria. The percentage of patients eligible for EVAR was evaluated. RESULTS: Out of a total of 182 patients with suspected AAA studied by CT angiography, after combined radiological-surgical assessment, 130 were considered eligible for surgical or endovascular treatment (71.4%). EVAR was indicated in 51 patients (39.3%, group A) and surgical repair was indicated in 79 patients (60.7%, group B). The reasons for ineligibility for EVAR were the following: unfavourable anatomy of the proximal neck in 41 patients (51.9%), diameter of the aneurysm sac >7 cm in 13 patients (16.4%), markedly tortuous/dilated iliac axis in six patients (7.6%), age <65 years in 17 patients (21.5%) and patient refusal in two cases (2.5%). There were no statistically significant differences in aneurysm diameter (52.7+/-0.8 versus 49.8+/-1.2 mm, p=ns), patients' age (73.2+/-1.2 versus 70.6+/-2.02 years, p=ns) or proximal neck length (2.95+/-1 versus 3.03+/-1.2 cm, p=ns) between groups A and B. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms through the placement of aortic stent-grafts has now become a viable alternative to open surgery. In recent years, the number of patients treated with EVAR has steadily risen as a result of increased physician experience, availability of new and more versatile devices and improvements in noninvasive imaging techniques. Unfavourable neck anatomy is the primary factor for exclusion from endovascular repair.
Authors: Teviah Sachs; Marc Schermerhorn; Frank Pomposelli; Philip Cotterill; James O'Malley; Bruce Landon Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2011-05-28 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: J H Ashton; J A M Mertz; J L Harper; M J Slepian; J L Mills; D V McGrath; J P Vande Geest Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: R Fossaceca; G Guzzardi; P Cerini; M Di Terlizzi; E Malatesta; L Filice; P Brustia; A Carriero Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Alan Karthikesalingam; Sandeep S Bahia; Shaneel R Patel; Bilal Azhar; Dan Jackson; Lynne Cresswell; Robert J Hinchliffe; Peter J E Holt; Matt M Thompson Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 10.612