PURPOSE: Hypogastric artery (HA) revascularization during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is still open to debate. Moreover, exclusion-related complication rates reported in literature are not negligible. The aim of this study is to present and analyze the outcomes in patients undergoing EVAR with exclusion of 1 or both HAs at our academic center. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our results in patients submitted to EVAR and needing HA exclusion, in terms of perioperative (30-day) and follow-up rates of intestinal and spinal cord ischemia, buttock claudication, buttock skin necrosis, and sexual dysfunction. RESULTS: From January 2008 to December 2014, a total of 527 patients underwent elective standard infrarenal EVAR; among those 104 (19.7%) had iliac involvement needing HA exclusion. In 73 patients with unilateral iliac involvement (70.1%, group UH), many single HAs were excluded. Thirty-one patients (29.9%) had bilateral iliac involvement (group BH), of which 16 (51.6%) had 1 HA excluded with revascularization of the contralateral one (group BHR); in the remaining 15 patients (48.4%) both HAs were excluded (group BHE). No 30-day or follow-up aneurysm-related mortality, intestinal, or spinal cord ischemia were recorded. At 30 days, skin necrosis was observed in 2 patients. Buttock claudication and sexual dysfunction rates were significantly greater in group BHE than in group BHR (P < .05). At a mean 18.6 months follow-up (range: 4-47), buttock claudication and sexual dysfunction rates in group BHE were persistently higher than that in groups UH and BHR (P < .05); HA coil embolization was significantly associated with buttock claudication and sexual dysfunction (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Whenever anatomically feasible, at least 1 HA should be salvaged in case of bilateral involvement. In case of unilateral HA exclusion, the rate of complications is not negligible. Coil embolization is related to a higher complication rate.
PURPOSE: Hypogastric artery (HA) revascularization during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is still open to debate. Moreover, exclusion-related complication rates reported in literature are not negligible. The aim of this study is to present and analyze the outcomes in patients undergoing EVAR with exclusion of 1 or both HAs at our academic center. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our results in patients submitted to EVAR and needing HA exclusion, in terms of perioperative (30-day) and follow-up rates of intestinal and spinal cord ischemia, buttock claudication, buttock skin necrosis, and sexual dysfunction. RESULTS: From January 2008 to December 2014, a total of 527 patients underwent elective standard infrarenal EVAR; among those 104 (19.7%) had iliac involvement needing HA exclusion. In 73 patients with unilateral iliac involvement (70.1%, group UH), many single HAs were excluded. Thirty-one patients (29.9%) had bilateral iliac involvement (group BH), of which 16 (51.6%) had 1 HA excluded with revascularization of the contralateral one (group BHR); in the remaining 15 patients (48.4%) both HAs were excluded (group BHE). No 30-day or follow-up aneurysm-related mortality, intestinal, or spinal cord ischemia were recorded. At 30 days, skin necrosis was observed in 2 patients. Buttock claudication and sexual dysfunction rates were significantly greater in group BHE than in group BHR (P < .05). At a mean 18.6 months follow-up (range: 4-47), buttock claudication and sexual dysfunction rates in group BHE were persistently higher than that in groups UH and BHR (P < .05); HA coil embolization was significantly associated with buttock claudication and sexual dysfunction (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Whenever anatomically feasible, at least 1 HA should be salvaged in case of bilateral involvement. In case of unilateral HA exclusion, the rate of complications is not negligible. Coil embolization is related to a higher complication rate.