Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Para-Anastomotic Aneurysms in Patients Who Were Morphological Candidates for Endovascular Treatment

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 745-751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Gawenda ◽  
Markus Zaehringer ◽  
Jan Brunkwall
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Open Versus

Stents for the Treatment of Aortic Aneurysms

1999 ◽  
Vol 82 (S 01) ◽  
pp. 171-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Ebert ◽  
M. Langer ◽  
P. Uhrmeister
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Imaging Modalities ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Multicenter Studies ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
First Results

SummaryThe endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms has generated a great deal of interest since the early 1990s, and many different devices are currently available. The procedure of endovascular repair has been evaluated in many institutions and the different devices are compared. The first results were encouraging, but complications like endoleak, dislocation or thrombosis of the graft occurred. By the available devices the stent application is only promising, if the known exclusion criteria are strictly respected. Therefore a careful preinterventional assessment of the patient by different imaging modalities is necessary. As the available results up to now are preliminary and the durability of the devices has to be controlled, multicenter studies are required to improve the devices and observe their long- term success in the exclusion of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Open Versus Endovascular AAA Repair in Patients Who Are Morphological Candidates for Endovascular Treatment

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley B. Hill ◽  
Yehuda G. Wolf ◽  
W. Anthony Lee ◽  
Frank R. Arko ◽  
Cornelius Olcott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Treatment ◽  
Open Versus

scholarly journals A Comparative Study of Open Versus Endovascular Repair of Inflammatory Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (5) ◽  
pp. 40S
Author(s):  
Stavros K. Kakkos ◽  
Konstantinos O. Papazoglou ◽  
Ioannis A. Tsolakis ◽  
George Lampropoulos ◽  
Spyros I. Papadoulas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Abdominal Aortic ◽  
Open Versus

Open versus Endovascular AAA Repair in Patients Who are Morphological Candidates for Endovascular Treatment

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley B. Hill ◽  
Yehuda G. Wolf ◽  
W. Anthony Lee ◽  
Frank R. Arko ◽  
Cornelius Olcott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Aneurysm Rupture ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Long Term Outcome ◽  
Morphological Criteria ◽  
Secondary Procedures ◽  
Open Versus

Purpose: To compare the outcomes of open versus endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a cohort of patients who fulfill morphological criteria for endovascular repair. Methods: A retrospective review of 229 consecutive AAA patients treated over a 3-year period identified 149 patients who were candidates for endovascular repair based on preoperative computed tomography and angiography. Of the 149 patients, 79 (68 men; mean age 74 ± 8 years) underwent endovascular repair with the AneuRx stent-graft; the remaining 70 (56 men; mean age 72 ± 8 years) had open repair. Short-term outcome measures were 30-day mortality and procedure-related morbidity, length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, intraoperative blood loss, interval to oral diet, and time to ambulation. Long-term outcome measures included death and secondary procedures. Results: There was no difference in the 30-day mortality between endovascular repair (2, 2.5%) and open repair (2, 2.9%), even though endovascular patients had more comorbidities (p<0.05). Overall length of stay was reduced for endovascular patients (3.9 ± 2.4 days versus 7.7 ± 3.1 days for surgical patients, p<0.0001). Fewer endograft patients had complications (24% versus 40% for open repair, p<0.05), and the severity of these complications was less, as evidenced by the shorter hospital stays for endovascular patients with complications compared to conventionally treated patients with complications (6.7 ± 2.4 days versus 22.5 ± 35.2 days, p<0.05). There were no aneurysm ruptures or late surgical conversions in either group. Conclusions: Patients with AAA who were endograft candidates but who were treated with open repair experienced more morbidity and had more complications than patients treated with stent-grafts. Despite increased comorbidities in the endograft patients, there was no increase in mortality compared to open repair. Both treatments required secondary procedures and appeared to be equally effective in preventing aneurysm rupture up to 3 years.

OPEN VERSUS ENDOVASCULAR REPAIR FOR EXTRACRANIAL CAROTID ANEURYSMS

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Galyfos ◽  
Malvina Eleftheriou ◽  
Charis Theodoropoulos ◽  
Dimitris Vouros ◽  
Konstantinos Georgiou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Open Versus ◽  
Carotid Aneurysms

scholarly journals Nationwide trends and regional/hospital variations in open versus endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

2012 ◽  
Vol 144 (3) ◽  
pp. 612-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua M. Liao ◽  
Faisal G. Bakaeen ◽  
Lorraine D. Cornwell ◽  
Kiki Simpson ◽  
Scott A. LeMaire ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Regional Hospital ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Open Versus

A Comparative Analysis of Open versus Endovascular Techniques for Management of Non-Aortic Cervicothoracic Arterial Injuries

2017 ◽  
Vol 83 (10) ◽  
pp. 1054-1058
Author(s):  
Kelsey Gray ◽  
Brian Beckord ◽  
Ashkan Moazzez ◽  
David Plurad ◽  
Nina Bowens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Deviation ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Endovascular Repair ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Arterial Injuries ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Carotid Artery Injuries ◽  
Inpatient Complication ◽  
Open Versus

The objective of this study is to describe the contemporary management of proximal upper extremity and neck arterial injuries by comparing open and endovascular repair at a single institution. This is a retrospective study of 22 patients that sustained subclavian, axillary, and carotid artery injuries from 2011 to 2016 that were managed with open or endovascular repair. There were nine subclavian, eight axillary, and five carotid artery injuries of which 10 (45.5%) underwent endovascular repair and 12 (54.5%) underwent open repair. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups including injury severity score or preoperative hypotension. There were no deaths in the endovascular group, and three (25.0%) deaths in the open group. All patients in the endovascular group were discharged home. In the open group, seven (58.3%) patients had at least one inpatient complication with a mean of 1.1 (standard deviation 1.4) complications per patient. In the endovascular group, there were three (30.0%) patients with inpatient complications and a mean of 0.4 (standard deviation 0.7) complications per patient (P = 0.18). Endovascular management of nonaortic cervicothoracic arterial injuries was successfully performed in hypotensive patients and patients with other life threatening traumatic injuries. Further studies are warranted to look at long-term patency of these repairs and to help develop a protocol to guide decision-making in the management of cervicothoracic injuries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document