BACKGROUND: Poor durability of femoropopliteal artery (FPA) stenting is multifactorial, and severe FPA deformations occurring with limb flexion are likely involved. Different stent designs result in dissimilar stent-artery interactions, but the degree of these effects in the FPA is insufficiently understood. OBJECTIVES: To determine how different stent designs affect limb flexion-induced FPA deformations. METHODS: Retrievable markers were deployed into n = 28 FPAs of lightly embalmed human cadavers. Bodies were perfused and CT images were acquired with limbs in the standing, walking, sitting, and gardening postures. Image analysis allowed measurement of baseline FPA foreshortening, bending, and twisting associated with each posture. Markers were retrieved and 7 different stents were deployed across the adductor hiatus in the same limbs. Markers were then redeployed in the stented FPAs, and limbs were reimaged. Baseline and stented FPA deformations were compared to determine the influence of each stent design. RESULTS: Proximal to the stent, Innova, Supera, and SmartFlex exacerbated foreshortening, SmartFlex exacerbated twisting, and SmartControl restricted bending of the FPA. Within the stent, all devices except Viabahn restricted foreshortening; Supera, SmartControl, and AbsolutePro restricted twisting; SmartFlex and Innova exacerbated twisting; and Supera and Viabahn restricted bending. Distal to the stents, all devices except AbsolutePro and Innova exacerbated foreshortening, and Viabahn, Supera, Zilver, and SmartControl exacerbated twisting. All stents except Supera were pinched in flexed limb postures. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral self-expanding stents significantly affect limb flexion-induced FPA deformations, but in different ways. Although certain designs seem to accommodate some deformation modes, no device was able to match all FPA deformations.
BACKGROUND: Poor durability of femoropopliteal artery (FPA) stenting is multifactorial, and severe FPA deformations occurring with limb flexion are likely involved. Different stent designs result in dissimilar stent-artery interactions, but the degree of these effects in the FPA is insufficiently understood. OBJECTIVES: To determine how different stent designs affect limb flexion-induced FPA deformations. METHODS: Retrievable markers were deployed into n = 28 FPAs of lightly embalmed human cadavers. Bodies were perfused and CT images were acquired with limbs in the standing, walking, sitting, and gardening postures. Image analysis allowed measurement of baseline FPA foreshortening, bending, and twisting associated with each posture. Markers were retrieved and 7 different stents were deployed across the adductor hiatus in the same limbs. Markers were then redeployed in the stented FPAs, and limbs were reimaged. Baseline and stented FPA deformations were compared to determine the influence of each stent design. RESULTS: Proximal to the stent, Innova, Supera, and SmartFlex exacerbated foreshortening, SmartFlex exacerbated twisting, and SmartControl restricted bending of the FPA. Within the stent, all devices except Viabahn restricted foreshortening; Supera, SmartControl, and AbsolutePro restricted twisting; SmartFlex and Innova exacerbated twisting; and Supera and Viabahn restricted bending. Distal to the stents, all devices except AbsolutePro and Innova exacerbated foreshortening, and Viabahn, Supera, Zilver, and SmartControl exacerbated twisting. All stents except Supera were pinched in flexed limb postures. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral self-expanding stents significantly affect limb flexion-induced FPA deformations, but in different ways. Although certain designs seem to accommodate some deformation modes, no device was able to match all FPA deformations.
Authors: Alexander Nikanorov; Martin Schillinger; Hugh Zhao; Erich Minar; Lewis B Schwartz Journal: EuroIntervention Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 6.534
Authors: Jason N MacTaggart; Nicholas Y Phillips; Carol S Lomneth; Iraklis I Pipinos; Robert Bowen; B Timothy Baxter; Jason Johanning; G Matthew Longo; Anastasia S Desyatova; Michael J Moulton; Yuris A Dzenis; Alexey V Kamenskiy Journal: J Biomech Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 2.712
Authors: Ríona Ní Ghriallais; Kevin Heraty; Bob Smouse; Martin Burke; Paul Gilson; Mark Bruzzi Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Alexey Kamenskiy; Andreas Seas; Paul Deegan; William Poulson; Eric Anttila; Sylvie Sim; Anastasia Desyatova; Jason MacTaggart Journal: Biomech Model Mechanobiol Date: 2016-10-22
Authors: Michael C Wadman; Carol S Lomneth; Lance H Hoffman; Wesley G Zeger; Lina Lander; Richard A Walker Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: F Gerald R Fowkes; Diana Rudan; Igor Rudan; Victor Aboyans; Julie O Denenberg; Mary M McDermott; Paul E Norman; Uchechukwe K A Sampson; Linda J Williams; George A Mensah; Michael H Criqui Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Martin Schillinger; Schila Sabeti; Petra Dick; Jasmin Amighi; Wolfgang Mlekusch; Oliver Schlager; Christian Loewe; Manfred Cejna; Johannes Lammer; Erich Minar Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-05-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kaspars Maleckis; Eric Anttila; Paul Aylward; William Poulson; Anastasia Desyatova; Jason MacTaggart; Alexey Kamenskiy Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 3.934