The early days of vascular and heart valve prostheses: a historical review.

This surgical heritage article provides a historical overview of the most important early advances of vascular- and valvular surgery, that lead to the development of currently used vascular- and valvular prostheses and materials. The first writings describing techniques in vascular surgery mainly focussed on hemorrhage control and date from around 1600 B.C. The strategy of vessel ligation was first mentioned in Western literature around 200 B.C. In the 18th century, techniques of ligation were expanded towards attempts of vessel restoration. The first artificial vascular prosthesis was made in 1894. From this time on, vascular prostheses were used in animal experiments and around 1900 for the first time in humans. More than 60 years later, in 1952, the first mechanical heart valve prosthesis was implanted. Four years later, the first successful biological heart valve implantation followed. In 2000, a transcatheter heart valve was successfully implanted in a human for the first time. Over time, procedures and techniques became more efficient and effective. This led to new developments, such as the manufacturing of a tissue engineered blood vessel in 1986. Nowadays, dozens of different valve prostheses have been devised, both mechanical and biological. Still, no ideal model of vascular and heart valve prosthesis exists.

[Professor Iosif Khaimovich Rabkin and his priorities in roentgenoendovascular surgery].

The article is dedicated to outstanding Soviet and Russian interventional radiologist, Professor I. Kh. Rabkin and his priorities in the development of roentgenoendovascular methods of diagnosis and treatment of arterial and venous diseases. Virtually simultaneously with American surgeons, I. Kh. Rabkin not only worked out anew method of intravascular stenting of arteries with spirals made of shape-memory metal ( nitinol) but was the first in the world who in 1984 successfully stented the external iliac artery in a 56-year-old male patient with stage IV limb ischaemia.

Treatment of infected thoracic aortic prosthetic grafts with the in situ preservation strategy: a review of its history, surgical technique, and results.

For cardiothoracic surgeons prosthetic graft infection still represents a difficult diagnostic and treatment problem to manage. An aggressive surgical strategy involving removal and in situ replacement of all the prosthetic material combined with extensive removal of the surrounding mediastinal tissue remains technically challenging in any case. Mortality and morbidity rates following such a major and risky surgical procedure are high due to the nature of the aggressive surgical approach and multi-organ failure typically caused by sepsis. However, removal of the infected prosthetic graft in patients who had an operation to reconstruct the ascending aorta and/or the aortic arch is not always possible or necessary for selected patients according to current alternative treatment options. Rather than following the traditional surgical concept of aggressive graft replacement nowadays a more conservative surgical approach with in situ preservation and coverage of the prosthetic graft by vascular tissue flaps can result in a good outcome. In this article, we review the relevant literature on this specific topic, particularly in terms of graft-sparing surgery for infected ascending/arch prosthetic grafts with special emphasis on staged treatment and the use of omentum transposition.

Early endovascular grafts at Montefiore Hospital and their effect on vascular surgery.

Vascular surgery is very fortunate. It recognized the transition from open surgery to endovascular procedures as treatments for vascular disease early enough to adapt as a specialty. As a result, most vascular surgeons in North America became competent with endovascular techniques, and the survival of the specialty was assured. The endovascular graft program at Montefiore Hospital played a major role in vascular surgery's early recognition of the importance of the endovascular revolution. This article will review the history of this early endovascular graft program and how it influenced the specialty.

Engineering goals for future thoracic endografts-how can we make them more effective?

Endovascular treatments for catastrophic aortic conditions have gained increasing popularity over the past 20 years. Originally developed for abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR), treatment has been modified for use in thoracic aortic repair (TEVAR). As expanding numbers of patients with increasingly intractable conditions and more hostile anatomies are treated, endovascular stent designs are maturing to be suitable for these more demanding situations. This article discusses the engineering considerations that apply to changing stent graft designs for current and evolving thoracic applications. The biological parameters that differentiate thoracic from abdominal aortic environments are outlined. Factors concerning materials, sealing mechanisms, deployment, stent frame architecture, and migration resistance are described, and eagerly awaited potential future developments are summarized.

Moving into the paravisceral aorta using fenestrated and branched endografts.

When one compares the potential advantages of endovascular aortic repair with respect to traditional open repair, it would seem logical that extension into the paravisceral aorta would be easily justified, given the complexity of open aortic repair and its associated complications. Eight years have transpired between trial initiation and Food and Drug Administration approval of the first fenestrated device in the United States for the treatment of juxtarenal aneurysms. While there are only a few centers in the United States with substantial experience performing fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair, there is a diverse experience outside the United States that has been gained over the past decade. It is through the experience of these centers that the technical and procedural complexities of complex endovascular aortic repair has been solved and provide the foundation that has allowed aortic specialists to move endovascular therapy into the paravisceral aorta with fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repairs.

Open versus endovascular stent graft repair for abdominal aortic aneurysms: an historical view.

Development of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysms repair (EVAR), now in its 4th decade, has involved at least 16 different devices, not counting major modifications of some, only 4 of which have emerged from clinical trials and gained US Food and Drug Administration approval. The main impetus behind EVAR has been its potential for significantly reducing procedural mortality and morbidity, but it was also expected to speed recovery and reduce costs through decreased use of hospital resources. At the outset, EVAR was touted as a better alternative to OPEN in high-risk patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms, and to "watchful waiting" (periodic ultrasound surveillance) for those with small abdominal aortic aneurysms. This new technology has evoked a mixed response with enthusiasts and detractors debating its pros and cons. Bias and conflict of interest exist on both sides. This review will attempt to present a balanced review of the development and current status of this controversial competition between EVAR and OPEN, comparing them in terms of the following key considerations: mortality and morbidity, complications, failure modes and durability, and costs.