Publication:
The Midterm Results of Fenestrated and Branched Aneurysm Repair of Previous Failed Fenestrated EVAR

dc.contributor.authorKiattisak Hongkuen_US
dc.contributor.authorTimothy Reschen_US
dc.contributor.authorBjörn Sonessonen_US
dc.contributor.authorNuno V. Diasen_US
dc.contributor.otherSkånes universitetssjukhusen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-05T05:52:17Z
dc.date.available2020-05-05T05:52:17Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2020 Elsevier Inc. Background: The purpose of this study was to report the feasibility and midterm outcomes of a redo-fenestrated and/or branched endovascular aortic repair (re-F/BEVAR) to rescue failed previous FEVAR. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing re-F/BEVAR were reviewed retrospectively. Electronic databases, clinical data, all imaging studies, and initial stent-graft planning were reviewed to assess causes of initial stent-graft failure and outcomes of re-F/BEVAR. Data are presented as median and interquartile range. Results: Five of 221 (2.2%) patients receiving an FEVAR between 2007 and 2015 underwent re-F/BEVAR between 2012 and 2016 (52 (34–80) months postoperatively). An unsuitable initial proximal sealing zone for the original FEVAR had been chosen in all patients. The failures motivating re-F/BEVAR became apparent as type Ia endoleaks (3 isolated and 1 combined with graft migration) and a graft migration associated with significant proximal aortic expansion (1 patient). The median operative time was 206 (202–378) minutes and technical success was achieved in all cases. Two patients received staged procedures. No perioperative death or spinal cord ischemia occurred. During a follow-up of 37 (22–56) months, 2 patients underwent late reinterventions, 1 patient required 1 reintervention, and 1 patient required 4 reinterventions including a type III endoleak with rupture. Secondary success could be achieved in all cases. There were 2 non–aneurysm-related deaths. Conclusions: Late FEVAR failure is rare and follows poor initial graft planning. Re-F/BEVAR is technically demanding but the midterm outcomes are acceptable even if reinterventions are needed in some patients. Re-F/BEVAR represents a valuable approach to rescue failed FEVAR but the findings need to be confirmed on a larger scale preferably with a multicenter contribution.en_US
dc.identifier.citationAnnals of Vascular Surgery. (2020)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.avsg.2020.02.018en_US
dc.identifier.issn16155947en_US
dc.identifier.issn08905096en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85083511045en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/54659
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85083511045&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleThe Midterm Results of Fenestrated and Branched Aneurysm Repair of Previous Failed Fenestrated EVARen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85083511045&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections