Giovanni Federico Torsello1. 1. Klinik für Radiologie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitépl. 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland. giovanni-federico.torsello@charite.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysms can either be treated by open surgery or endovascular repair. In both cases, prostheses are implanted to prevent potentially lethal aortic ruptures. OBJECTIVES: Studies seeking to identify the optimal treatment came to diverging conclusions. The goal of this article is to shed light on the discussion of which treatment option is to be preferred. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article summarizes the relevant studies on elective and emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. The presented studies are discussed, and results are interpreted and compared. RESULTS: While most studies indicate lower short-term mortality rates in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), mortality rates converged in multiple trials and even showed a lower mortality rate for open repair in mid-term analyses. Most recent studies indicate long-term equivalence in terms of mortality and a higher rate of secondary interventions in EVAR patients. CONCLUSIONS: The current body of literature indicates no real advantage of one therapy over another. The choice of therapy should depend on anatomic, clinical, and logistic criteria.
BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysms can either be treated by open surgery or endovascular repair. In both cases, prostheses are implanted to prevent potentially lethal aortic ruptures. OBJECTIVES: Studies seeking to identify the optimal treatment came to diverging conclusions. The goal of this article is to shed light on the discussion of which treatment option is to be preferred. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article summarizes the relevant studies on elective and emergency abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. The presented studies are discussed, and results are interpreted and compared. RESULTS: While most studies indicate lower short-term mortality rates in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), mortality rates converged in multiple trials and even showed a lower mortality rate for open repair in mid-term analyses. Most recent studies indicate long-term equivalence in terms of mortality and a higher rate of secondary interventions in EVAR patients. CONCLUSIONS: The current body of literature indicates no real advantage of one therapy over another. The choice of therapy should depend on anatomic, clinical, and logistic criteria.
Authors: Bibombe P Mwipatayi; Joseph Faraj; Olufemi Oshin; Robert Fitridge; Jackie Wong; Marc L Schermerhorn; Jean-Pierre Becquemin; Dittmar Boeckler; Vincente Riambau; Joep Aw Teijink; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Hence Verhagen Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2020-05-19 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Theodorus G van Schaik; Kak K Yeung; Hence J Verhagen; Jorg L de Bruin; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Ron Balm; Clark J Zeebregts; Joost A van Herwaarden; Jan D Blankensteijn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.268