Ya-Ting Gu1,2, Tzu-Ting Kuo1,2, Po-Lin Chen1,2, Chun-Yang Huang1,2, Chun-Che Shih3, I-Ming Chen4,5. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shipai Road, Beitou District, Taipei City, Taiwan. 2. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. Institute of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shipai Road, Beitou District, Taipei City, Taiwan. alomar2099@gmail.com. 5. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. alomar2099@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of using iliac branch devices (IBD) and the crossover chimney (COCh) technique for preserving the internal iliac artery (IIA) during endovascular aortic repair in patients with common iliac aneurysm (CIA). METHODS: From February 2010 to July 2016, we recruited 61 consecutive and elective patients. Thirty of them received the IBD, and the remaining 31 received the COCh. Their medical chart was reviewed retrospectively, and computed tomographic angiography was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and then yearly as a follow-up. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 19.72 ± 5.45 months. The technical success rate reached 100% in both groups. The 12-month and 24-month primary IIA patency rates between IBD and COCh group were 90.00% versus 93.54% (p = 0.67) and 83.33% versus 93.54% (p = 0.25). The numbers of stents were 1.00 ± 0.00 and 1.93 ± 0.24 in the IBD and COCh group (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed for the incidence of type 1a (IBD/COCh = 3.33%/6.45%, p > 0.99) and type 2 endoleak (IBD/COCh = 13.33%/12.90%, p > 0.99) between two groups. Neither type 1b or type 3 endoleak nor delayed aortic rupture appeared in our series. The postoperative complication rates did not exhibit significant differences either. Free from reintervention was also similar in both groups (IBD/COCh = 22.50 ± 4.62/23.00 ± 3.87 months, p = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: The IBD and COCh techniques exhibited similar success rates and IIA patency rates at the 24-month follow-up. Both these techniques are feasible for the preservation of IIA in patients with CIA.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of using iliac branch devices (IBD) and the crossover chimney (COCh) technique for preserving the internal iliac artery (IIA) during endovascular aortic repair in patients with common iliac aneurysm (CIA). METHODS: From February 2010 to July 2016, we recruited 61 consecutive and elective patients. Thirty of them received the IBD, and the remaining 31 received the COCh. Their medical chart was reviewed retrospectively, and computed tomographic angiography was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and then yearly as a follow-up. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 19.72 ± 5.45 months. The technical success rate reached 100% in both groups. The 12-month and 24-month primary IIA patency rates between IBD and COCh group were 90.00% versus 93.54% (p = 0.67) and 83.33% versus 93.54% (p = 0.25). The numbers of stents were 1.00 ± 0.00 and 1.93 ± 0.24 in the IBD and COCh group (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed for the incidence of type 1a (IBD/COCh = 3.33%/6.45%, p > 0.99) and type 2 endoleak (IBD/COCh = 13.33%/12.90%, p > 0.99) between two groups. Neither type 1b or type 3 endoleak nor delayed aortic rupture appeared in our series. The postoperative complication rates did not exhibit significant differences either. Free from reintervention was also similar in both groups (IBD/COCh = 22.50 ± 4.62/23.00 ± 3.87 months, p = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: The IBD and COCh techniques exhibited similar success rates and IIA patency rates at the 24-month follow-up. Both these techniques are feasible for the preservation of IIA in patients with CIA.
Authors: D C Brewster; D P Franklin; R P Cambria; R C Darling; A C Moncure; G M Lamuraglia; W M Stone; W M Abbott Journal: Surgery Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 3.982