Konstantinos G Moulakakis1, Christos Klonaris2, John Kakisis3, Constantine N Antonopoulos3, Andreas Lazaris3, George S Sfyroeras3, George Mantas3, Spyridon N Vasdekis3, Elias N Brountzos4, George Geroulakos3. 1. Department of Vascular Surgery, Athens University Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece. Electronic address: konmoulakakis@yahoo.gr. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, First Department of Surgery, Laiko General Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 3. Department of Vascular Surgery, Athens University Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece. 4. Department of Radiology, Athens University Medical School, Attikon University Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of type II endoleak causing sac enlargement continues to be a topic of debate. The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the outcomes between open surgical technique with sacotomy and suturing of the feeding vessels to interventional embolization in patients with aneurysm sac expansion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Inclusion criteria for intervention in patients with prior EVAR and type II endoleak were asymptomatic expanding aneurysm sac > 5 mm between 2 consecutive follow-up computed tomography angiography scans and symptomatic aneurysm sac expansion. Age, sex, comorbidities, clinical presentation, commercial type of endograft of prior EVAR, aneurysm sac increase, type of treatment, morbidity, mortality, and follow-up were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 694 consecutive patients were operated with EVAR during the study period. Among them, 29 patients (4.2%) were presented with a type II endoleak that required reintervention. Ten patients (34.5%) were treated with embolization. We recorded a 50% technical success in the group of primary translumbar embolization and 67% in the group of intra-arterial embolization. Twenty-two patients were treated with laparotomy and open ligation of the culprit arteries causing the type II endoleak. Among them, 3 patients (13.6%) had been initially treated with unsuccessful embolization. Periprocedural intervention complications for the embolization group (10%, 1/10) included 1 psoas hematoma. On the contrary, complications after primary open ligation were 13.6% (3/22) and included 1 proximal dislocation treated with endograft explantation, 1 distal dislocation, and 1 limb ligation with femoral-femoral bypass which resulted in colonic ischemia and death (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Open surgical repair with sacotomy and suturing of the feeding vessels appeared to have better outcome regarding the exclusion of the aneurysm but was associated with a higher incidence of severe complications and one related death. If these results are confirmed in larger series, endovascular approach should be the preferred treatment option.
BACKGROUND: The management of type II endoleak causing sac enlargement continues to be a topic of debate. The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the outcomes between open surgical technique with sacotomy and suturing of the feeding vessels to interventional embolization in patients with aneurysm sac expansion after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Inclusion criteria for intervention in patients with prior EVAR and type II endoleak were asymptomatic expanding aneurysm sac > 5 mm between 2 consecutive follow-up computed tomography angiography scans and symptomatic aneurysm sac expansion. Age, sex, comorbidities, clinical presentation, commercial type of endograft of prior EVAR, aneurysm sac increase, type of treatment, morbidity, mortality, and follow-up were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 694 consecutive patients were operated with EVAR during the study period. Among them, 29 patients (4.2%) were presented with a type II endoleak that required reintervention. Ten patients (34.5%) were treated with embolization. We recorded a 50% technical success in the group of primary translumbar embolization and 67% in the group of intra-arterial embolization. Twenty-two patients were treated with laparotomy and open ligation of the culprit arteries causing the type II endoleak. Among them, 3 patients (13.6%) had been initially treated with unsuccessful embolization. Periprocedural intervention complications for the embolization group (10%, 1/10) included 1 psoas hematoma. On the contrary, complications after primary open ligation were 13.6% (3/22) and included 1 proximal dislocation treated with endograft explantation, 1 distal dislocation, and 1 limb ligation with femoral-femoral bypass which resulted in colonic ischemia and death (4.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Open surgical repair with sacotomy and suturing of the feeding vessels appeared to have better outcome regarding the exclusion of the aneurysm but was associated with a higher incidence of severe complications and one related death. If these results are confirmed in larger series, endovascular approach should be the preferred treatment option.
Authors: Panagiotis G Theodoridis; Dimitrios N Staramos; Nikolaos Ptochis; Ioannis A Papailiou; Ilias Dodos; Nikolaos Iatrou; Anastasios G Potouridis; Konstantinos Dervisis Journal: Case Rep Vasc Med Date: 2017-05-28
Authors: Piotr Kulig; Krzysztof Lewandowski; Bogusław Rudel; Maciej Chwała; Marek Piwowarczyk; Wojciech Mrowiecki Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 1.195