Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Ann Vasc Surg ; 31: 1-7, 2016 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26658091

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the aneurysm-related complications and device issues in patients who underwent partial endograft explantation during late conversion of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to open repair. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who had partially explanted endografts during late conversion between 1999 and 2012. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, subsequent operations, and aneurysm-related complications. Postoperative abdominal X-ray films and computed tomography scans were analyzed for endograft migration, component separation, device fracture, and arterial growth or aneurysm issues. RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2012, 22 patients had late conversion after EVAR with portions of the device left in situ. Five of the partially removed devices were Zenith, 6 Talent, 5 Ancure, 3 AneuRx, 2 Excluder endografts, and 1 Cook Aorto uni-iliac (AUI) graft. There were 4 in hospital mortalities. There were no graft migrations, component separations, device fractures, new aneurysmal degeneration, or ruptures with a median follow-up of 26.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: Partial endograft removal during late conversion is not associated with complications from the remaining device pieces during follow-up. We recommend further study of this patient population.


Subject(s)
Aortic Aneurysm/surgery , Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/instrumentation , Blood Vessel Prosthesis , Device Removal/methods , Endoleak/surgery , Endovascular Procedures/instrumentation , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aortic Aneurysm/diagnosis , Aortography/methods , Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects , Device Removal/adverse effects , Endoleak/diagnosis , Endoleak/etiology , Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome
2.
J Vasc Surg ; 59(4): 886-93, 2014 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24377945

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: With more than a decade of use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), we expect to see a rise in the number of failing endografts. We review a single-center experience with EVAR explants to identify patterns of presentation and understand operative outcomes that may alter clinical management. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of EVARs requiring late explants, >1 month after implant, was performed. Patient demographics, type of graft, duration of implant, reason for removal, operative technique, length of stay, complications, and in-hospital and late mortality were reviewed. RESULTS: During 1999 to 2012, 100 patients (91% men) required EVAR explant, of which 61 were placed at another institution. The average age was 75 years (range, 50-93 years). The median length of time since implantation was 41 months (range, 1-144 months). Explanted grafts included 25 AneuRx (Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minn), 25 Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz), 17 Zenith (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), 15 Talent (Medtronic), 10 Ancure (Guidant, Indianapolis, Ind), 4 Powerlink (Endologix, Irvine, Calif), 1 Endurant (Medtronic), 1 Quantum LP (Cordis, Miami Lakes, Fla), 1 Aorta Uni Iliac Rupture Graft (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind), and 1 homemade tube graft. Overall 30-day mortality was 17%, with an elective case mortality of 9.9%, nonelective case mortality of 37%, and 56% mortality for ruptures. Endoleak was the most common indication for explant, with one or more endoleaks present in 82% (type I, 40%; II, 30%; III, 22%; endotension, 6%; multiple, 16%). Other reasons for explant included infection (13%), acute thrombosis (4%), and claudication (1%). In the first 12 months, 23 patients required explants, with type I endoleak (48%) and infection (35%) the most frequent indication. Conversely, 22 patients required explants after 5 years, with type I (36%) and type III (32%) endoleak responsible for most indications. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of EVAR late explants has increased during the past decade at our institution. Survival is higher when the explant is done electively compared with emergent repair. Difficulty in obtaining a seal at the initial EVAR often leads to failure ≤1 year, whereas progression of aneurysmal disease is the primary reason for failure >5 years.


Subject(s)
Aneurysm/surgery , Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/instrumentation , Blood Vessel Prosthesis , Device Removal , Endovascular Procedures/instrumentation , Postoperative Complications/surgery , Prosthesis Failure , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aneurysm/mortality , Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects , Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/mortality , Device Removal/adverse effects , Device Removal/mortality , Disease Progression , Elective Surgical Procedures , Emergencies , Endoleak/etiology , Endoleak/surgery , Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects , Endovascular Procedures/mortality , Female , Graft Occlusion, Vascular/etiology , Graft Occlusion, Vascular/surgery , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Ohio , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Proportional Hazards Models , Prosthesis Design , Prosthesis-Related Infections/etiology , Prosthesis-Related Infections/surgery , Reoperation , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/surgery , Time Factors , Treatment Failure
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...