首页> 外文期刊>Journal of endovascular therapy: an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists >Experience With Unfavorable Iliac Access When Performing Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair
【24h】

Experience With Unfavorable Iliac Access When Performing Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

机译:在执行未封入/分支血管内动脉瘤修复时经验不利的髂骨接入

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose: To review a single-center experience with fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (f/bEVAR) in patients with challenging iliac anatomies. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of the department’s database identified 398 consecutive patients who underwent complex endovascular repair f/bEVAR between January 2010 and June 2018; of these, 67 had challenging accesses. The strategies implemented to overcome access issues were reviewed, using a dedicated scoring system to evaluate the access (integrating diameter, tortuosity, calcification, and previous open or endovascular repair). Results: In this subgroup of patients, the most common graft design was a 4-vessel fenestrated endograft (27, 40.3%). Hostile access was due to small diameter (<7 mm) in 25 patients (37.3%) and/or concentric calcifications in 19 patients (26.9%). Mean iliac diameter was 5.5±2.6 mm on the right side and 6.0±2.5 mm on the left side. Previous open or endovascular aortoiliac repair had been performed in 15 patients (22.4%), and 20 patients (29.9%) had a stent previously implanted in at least 1 iliac artery, resulting in the inability to perform standard fenestrated repair with access from both sides. Five patients (7.5%) had a single patent iliac access. Eight distinctive strategies were identified to overcome these access issues, including the use of preloaded renal catheters in the endograft delivery system, angioplasty, graft modification (branches instead of fenestrations or 4 preloaded fenestrations), a conduit via a retroperitoneal approach, iliac artery recanalization, and/or the multiple puncture technique. Technical success was achieved in 62 cases (92.5%). Four patients had access complications and 1 died in the early postoperative period of multiorgan failure. Median follow-up was 24.6 months (IQR 7.2, 41.3). Clinical success at the end of follow-up was achieved in 57 patients (85.1%). During follow-up, 14 patients died, including 4 from an aorta-related cause. Conclusion: Dedicated strategies can be implemented to overcome hostile iliac access in patients with complex aneurysms when f/bEVAR is required. Typically, these maneuvers are associated with favorable outcomes.
机译:目的:回顾在髂骨解剖结构有挑战性的患者中进行开窗分支血管内动脉瘤修复(f/bEVAR)的单中心经验。材料和方法:回顾性分析该科数据库,确定2010年1月至2018年6月期间连续398例接受复杂血管内修复f/bEVAR的患者;其中67人的访问具有挑战性。回顾了为克服通路问题而实施的策略,使用专门的评分系统评估通路(综合直径、迂曲度、钙化和以前的开放或血管内修复)。结果:在这一亚组患者中,最常见的移植物设计是4血管开窗内移植物(27,40.3%)。25名患者(37.3%)的小直径(<7 mm)和/或19名患者(26.9%)的同心钙化是恶意进入的原因。平均髂骨直径右侧为5.5±2.6 mm,左侧为6.0±2.5 mm。15名患者(22.4%)曾接受过开放式或血管内主髂动脉修复,20名患者(29.9%)曾在至少1条髂动脉内植入支架,导致无法进行标准的双侧开窗修复。5名患者(7.5%)有一次髂骨未闭。确定了八种不同的策略来克服这些进入问题,包括在移植物内输送系统中使用预加载的肾导管、血管成形术、移植物改良(分支代替开窗或4个预加载的开窗)、经腹膜后途径的导管、髂动脉再通和/或多重穿刺技术。技术成功62例(92.5%)。4例患者出现了手术并发症,1例死于术后早期多器官衰竭。中位随访时间为24.6个月(IQR 7.2,41.3)。随访结束时,57名患者(85.1%)取得了临床成功。在随访期间,14名患者死亡,其中4人死于主动脉相关原因。结论:在需要f/bEVAR的复杂动脉瘤患者中,可以实施专门的策略来克服不友好的髂动脉通路。通常,这些策略与有利的结果相关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号