Open Reintervention for Aneurysmal Sac Enlargement after EVAR

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes between Graft Replacement and Aneurysmorrhaphy with Graft Preservation for Type 2 Endoleaks after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare treatment outcomes between graft replacement and aneurysmorrhaphy with ligation of the aortic side branches for type 2 endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed multicenter data of patients who underwent open surgical conversion, including graft replacement or aneurysmorrhaphy with ligation of the aortic side branches (graft preservation) for the treatment of type 2 endoleaks between 2007 and 2022. The endpoints were postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, overall survival, and reintervention or sac expansion after open surgical conversion.

RESULTS

Forty patients underwent open surgical conversion (graft replacement, n = 9; graft preservation, n = 31). There were no significant differences in patient characteristics at open surgical conversion or anatomical data of the initial EVAR between the groups. The median operative time and amount of blood loss were significantly lesser in the graft preservation group than in the replacement group (179 vs. 318 min, P < 0.001, and 710 vs. 2,567 mL, P = 0.030, respectively). There was no difference in the occurrence of postoperative complications between the 2 groups (P = 0.645). No 30-day mortality was observed in any of the groups. Overall survival rate at 5 years after open surgical conversion was 85.7% in the graft replacement group and 77.8% in the graft preservation group (P = 0.789). Freedom from sac expansion or reintervention rate at 5 years after open surgical conversion was 100% in the graft replacement group and 76.0% in the graft preservation group (P = 0.239).

CONCLUSION

Aneurysmorrhaphy with ligation of the aortic side branches was less invasive treatment compared with graft replacement, although there were no differences in postoperative complications. No reintervention was needed after graft replacement; however, some patients required reintervention after graft preservation. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal surgical procedure for the treatment of type 2 endoleak.

The outcome of late open conversion after endovascular abdominal aortic repair

BackgroundEndovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR) offers a less invasive approach to treating abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) compared to open repair. However, EVAR is associated with higher rates of reintervention. This study investigates the early and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent late open conversion including aneurysmorrhaphy after EVAR at our institution.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 29 patients who underwent late open conversion for AAA dilatation after EVAR between April 2015 and March 2022 at Chiba University Hospital. Surgical strategies included an artificial graft replacement for Type Ia endoleak (EL), Type III EL from stent graft main body, ruptured cases, and aneurysmorrhaphy with branch ligation for Type II EL.ResultsThe average time from EVAR to open conversion was 4.1 ± 2.3 years. There have been no reported cases of in-hospital mortality to date. Aneurysmorrhaphy demonstrated shorter operative times (239 ± 65 min) and lower red blood cell transfusion volumes (2.7 ± 4.2 units) compared to graft replacement. Postoperative complications included spinal cord ischemia in one patient and three patients requiring reintervention due to persistent or new ELs, who underwent angiography. The seven-year all-cause mortality rate was 78.5%. Among cases that underwent aneurysmorrhaphy, postoperative computed tomography scans showed a reduction in the maximum aortic diameter from 65 ± 6 mm preoperatively to 42 ± 10 mm postoperatively and 36 ± 11 mm at follow-up.ConclusionsLate open conversion including aneurysmorrhaphy after EVAR appears to be safe and effective, with no in-hospital mortality and low complication rates. Careful preoperative planning and appropriate surgical techniques are essential for optimizing outcomes.

Retropharyngeal carotid body tumor: A challenge in terms of surgical technicality

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE

Carotid body tumors are rare neoplasms originating from neural crest cells, commonly presenting as a painless, slow-growing mass in the lateral neck. The retropharyngeal variant of these tumors is particularly uncommon, with an incidence of approximately 2.6 %.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 50-year-old man presented to the Otolaryngology Department at Rasoul Akram Hospital with a painless 3 × 4 cm mass on the right side of his neck, which had gradually increased in size. Clinical examination revealed a pulsatile, nontender mass exerting pressure on the right lateral aspect of the pharynx. A CT scan showed a well-defined, enhancing retropharyngeal mass located between the internal and external carotid arteries on the right side, suggestive of a carotid body tumor. The patient underwent surgical resection, achieving complete tumor removal without complications. A four-year follow-up revealed no signs of tumor recurrence.

CLINICAL DISCUSSION

Carotid body tumors are indolent masses. Diagnosis typically involves clinical evaluation, supplemented by imaging techniques such as ultrasound, CT scan, and MRI, which aid in delineating the tumor's morphology and dimensions. Surgical resection remains the preferred treatment, aiming to achieve complete tumor excision while preserving blood flow, avoiding damage to critical organs and nerves, and safeguarding brain function.

CONCLUSION

The retropharyngeal location of carotid body tumors represents an exceptionally rare variant, and their surgical resection presents a significant challenge for surgeons. This case report offers crucial insights into the surgical management of a retropharyngeal carotid body tumor, serving as a valuable resource for future surgeons who may face similar cases.

A meta-analysis of translumbar embolization versus transarterial embolization for type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between transarterial and translumbar (direct aneurysm sac puncture) approaches for persistent type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

METHODS

We searched multiple electronic databases (up to October 31, 2018) for eligible trials in patients with type II endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs that evaluated the outcomes of translumbar embolization vs transarterial embolization. The primary outcome was clinical success (absence of the endoleak on the last examination); the secondary outcomes were technical success and complication rate. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated.

RESULTS

Among the 904 studies screened, 9 studies with 354 participants were included in this review. None of the studies reported rupture or mortality. The translumbar group had a relatively higher clinical success rate than the transarterial group, but this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.00-5.25; P = .05; I2 = 52%). The technical success rate was significantly higher in the translumbar group than in the transarterial group (OR, 13.32; 95% CI, 3.41-52.07; P = .0002; I2 = 0%). No significant difference was found in the complication rate of the two groups (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.26-4.96; P = .85; I2 = 0%). We also included five studies that reported the clinical outcomes of open repair. All patients were technically treated by open repair, and 58 of 60 patients owned clinical success during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The translumbar route was more successful in obliterating the endoleak on follow-up imaging. When repeated endovascular embolizations fail, a laparotomy should follow.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Outcome of Treatment for Type II Endoleak Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy and need for secondary interventions for type II endoleaks following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain controversial. This systematic review aimed at investigating the clinical outcomes of different type II endoleak treatments in patients with a persistent type II endoleak after EVAR.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Medline via Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar.

REVIEW METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. Outcomes of interest were technical and clinical success, change in sac diameter, complications, need for additional interventions, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture, and (AAA related) mortality. Meta-analyses were performed with random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 59 studies were included, with a cumulative cohort of 1073 patients with persistent type II endoleak. Peri-operative complications following treatment of type II endoleaks occurred in 3.8% of patients (95% CI 2.7-5.2%), and AAA related mortality was 1.8% (95% CI 1.1-2.7%). Overall technical success was 87.9% (95% CI 83.1-92.1%), while clinical success was 68.4% (95% CI 61.2-75.1%). Among studies detailing sac dynamics, decrease or stable sac, with or without resolution, was achieved in 78.4% (95% CI 70.2-85.6%). Changes in sac diameter following type II endoleak treatment were documented in 157 patients to at least 24 months. Within this group an actual decrease in sac diameter was reported in only 27 of 40 patients.

CONCLUSION

There is little evidence supporting the efficacy of secondary intervention for type II endoleaks after EVAR. Although generally safe, the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of type II endoleak treatment leads to difficulty in assessing its merits.

An Institution-Wide Algorithm for Treatment of Type II Endoleak Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR)

Objectives:

Multiple endovascular techniques have been described for the treatment of persistent type II endoleaks (pT2ELs) causing aneurysm sac growth following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In the event of a failed endovascular procedure and a pT2EL, a consensus regarding further treatment is lacking, and the literature suggests repeated endovascular attempts are rarely successful. Herein, we propose an algorithm for definitive management of pT2ELs with persistent sac growth following EVAR.

Methods:

A retrospective review of 29 patients who underwent treatment of persistent sac growth in the setting of pT2ELs was performed. Intervention methods were determined at the discretion of the operating surgeon. Aneurysmal sac enlargement was defined as a diameter increase > 5 mm, and persistent endoleak was defined as lasting greater than 6 months.

Results:

From 2000 to 2015, 917 EVAR procedures were performed at our institution. Isolated pT2ELs with sac enlargement were identified in 29 patients. Twenty-five patients underwent direct translumbar sac puncture and coiling and/or Onyx (Onyx, Plymouth, Minnesota) embolization of the culprit vessels. Thirteen (52%) of 25 patients had pT2EL after first endovascular intervention, and 10 (40%) of 25 patients failed 2 endovascular treatments. Of those 10, 7 displayed persistent aneurysmal sac growth and underwent a third embolization procedure. Type II endoleaks persisted in 6 patients; 3 patients were subsequently treated with laparotomy, ligation of lumbar vessels, sac exploration, and sac plication around the endograft. Technical success for this technique was 100%. During a mean follow-up of 38.4 months, no recurrent T2ELs, stent graft migration, and/or disjunction were observed.

Conclusions:

We propose a new algorithm for the management of pT2ELs. If 2 endovascular procedures fail to control of the endoleak, repeat endovascular attempts are not recommended. Endovascular failure should be followed by laparotomy with surgical ligation of culprit feeding vessels followed by sac exploration and plication of the sac, and endoaneurysmorrhaphy.