4.7 Article

Mid-Term Outcomes of a Pre-Cannulated Iliac Branched Device in the Treatment of Abdominal Aortoiliac Aneurysms: A Retrospective Analysis from a Single Center

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12196395

关键词

aorta; iliac; aneurysm; endovascular; hypogastric

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to assess the mid-term results of the E-iliac branched device for the treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms. The results showed high technical success and low re-intervention rate, indicating promising mid-term outcomes for E-iliac.
The aim was to assess the mid-term results of the E-iliac branched device. Baseline and follow-up data of this monocentric retrospective cohort study including all consecutive patients with aortoiliac aneurysms treated with iliac branched devices between 2016 and 2023 were extracted from the hospital records. Preoperative and follow-up CT scans were analyzed regarding endoleaks, migration, aneurysm sac remodeling, and device patency. Overall, 50 devices were implanted in 38 patients with a median age of 69 (IQR 62-78) years, and 1.6 bridging stent grafts per vessel were implanted through transfemoral (22/50; 44%) or upper extremity access (28/50; 56%). Primary technical success and assisted technical success were 97% (37/38) and 100% (38/38), respectively. No migration, no type I or III endoleaks, no stroke, colonic ischemia, aneurysm rupture, or conversion during the early and mid-term follow-ups (11 months, IQR 5-26) were observed. Aneurysm sac enlargement or shrinkage was observed in 0% (0/38) and 16% (6/38) patients, respectively. E-iliac-related re-interventions were seen only during the early follow-up: two thrombectomies with bare-metal stent relining after thrombosis of the iliac limb. Bridging stent graft and E-iliac patency during the mid-term follow-up were 100%. E-iliac showed encouraging mid-term results in the treatment of aortoiliac aneurysms with high technical success and a low re-intervention rate.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据