Late type II endoleaks (T2ELs) arising from the internal iliac artery (IIA) may present during follow-up after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of aortoiliac aneurysm and may warrant embolization if enlargement of the aneurysmal sac is demonstrated. When coverage of the IIA ostium has been made due to extensive iliac disease, access options can be challenging. Different treatment options have been reported over recent years, and a careful selection of the best one must be made based on the characteristics of each case. The present study reports a simple and reproducible sheathless percutaneous superior gluteal artery (SGA) access and provides a discussion based on a review of the existing literature on this topic.

Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) has replaced open surgical repair as the treatment of choice for several aortic conditions. Despite its lower morbidity and mortality, several TEVAR-related complications can occur and some of which may necessitate surgical or endovascular re-intervention. The current article reviews common and rare complications of TEVAR procedure with emphasis on complications identifiable on cross-sectional imaging and potential pitfalls of pre-procedural planning.

Background/Objectives: this systematic review aims to explore the efficacy and safety of the laparoscopic ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) as an emerging trend for addressing a type II endoleak following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across several databases including Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. The search focused on articles reporting on the laparoscopic ligation of the IMA for the treatment of a type II endoleak post-EVAR. Data were extracted regarding study characteristics, patient demographics, technical success rates, postoperative outcomes, and follow-up results. Results: Our analysis included ten case studies and two retrospective cohort studies, comprising a total of 26 patients who underwent a laparoscopic ligation of the IMA between 2000 and 2023. The mean age of the cohort was 72.3 years, with a male predominance (92.3%). The mean AAA diameter at the time of intervention was 69.7 mm. The technique demonstrated a high technical success rate of 92.3%, with a mean procedure time of 118.4 min and minimal blood loss. The average follow-up duration was 19.9 months, with 73% of patients experiencing regression of the aneurysmal sac, and no reports of an IMA-related type II endoleak during the follow-up period. Conclusions: The laparoscopic ligation of the IMA for a type II endoleak following EVAR presents a promising, minimally invasive alternative with high technical success rates and favorable postoperative outcomes. Despite its potential advantages, including reduced contrast agent use and radiation exposure, its application remains limited to specialized centers. The findings suggest the need for further research in larger prospective studies to validate the effectiveness of this procedure and potentially broaden its clinical adoption.

UNASSIGNED: This systematic review aimed to summarize the effectiveness and safety of endoanchor, a stabilizing device for the proximal endograft designed to prevent endoleak and stent migration in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR).
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline. Literature up to May 31, 2023 was searched and independently screened from 4 databases. Data were pooled for meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included intraoperative and follow-up endoleak, stent migration, and reintervention rates; sac regression; and 30-day all-cause mortality.
UNASSIGNED: Sixteen EVAR (n=1145) and 6 TEVAR studies (n=163) using the Heli-Fx EndoAnchor system were included from 2225 retrieved records. For EVAR patients (mean follow-up=11.9 months), the endoleak, graft migration, and reintervention rates were 3.97% (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.36%-1.99%), 0.004% (95% CI=0.00%-0.76%), and 5.43% (95% CI=0.86%-12.54%), respectively. The endoleak rates for primary and revision EVAR were 0.16% (95% CI=0.00%-1.65%) and 3.60% (95% CI=0.14%-9.72%), respectively. Only 4 cases of 30-day mortality (n=4) were reported in the literature. For TEVAR patients, the endoleak, stent migration, and reintervention rates were 7.4% (95% CI=0.03%-0.13%), 0.2% (95% CI=0.00%-0.06%), and 17.1% (95% CI=0.01%-0.45%), respectively. The 30-day mortality was 0.9% (95% CI=0%-0.12%).
UNASSIGNED: Endoanchor fixation in EVAR and TEVAR is effective and safe in preventing and treating endoleak and stent migration. The mortality is minimal in EVAR but higher in TEVAR.
CONCLUSIONS: Endoleak, graft migration, and reintervention in EVAR and TEVAR with endoanchor use were rare. Mortality in EVAR was low. The adjunctive deployment of endoanchors is an effective and safe means to prevent and treat endoleak and stent migration in EVAR and TEVAR. Yet, long-term efficacy and safety data and randomized controlled trials would be required to definitively recommend endoanchor use in routine clinical practice.

UNASSIGNED: : Endotension is a rare late complication characterized by an increase in sac size without any type of endoleak following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). Due to its rarity, few studies have demonstrated the mechanism behind and the management of endotension. In this study, we aimed to better understand the treatment and the long-term outcome of endotension in a single-center cohort.
UNASSIGNED: : This study was designed for a retrospective review of the patients diagnosed with endotension between January 2006 and December 2017. The study patients were categorized into two groups (primary versus secondary) based on the presence of any type of endoleak before the diagnosis of endotension. We collected data related to endotension treatment, intraoperative findings, and long-term outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: : In a cohort of 15 patients diagnosed with endotension following EVAR, eight were classified into the primary endotension (PE) group without prior endoleak, and seven exhibited secondary endotension (SE). Among the eight PE patients, endovascular intervention for a preemptive purpose was conducted in six patients; however, three (50%) showed continuous sac expansion and finally received open conversion. Overall, eight patients (five in PE and three in SE) underwent open conversion, and one (12.5%) presented with an undetected endoleak during the operative findings. Postoperative morbidity was observed in three patients with no operative mortality.
UNASSIGNED: : Endotension can be managed initially through simple observation for changes on serial images, along with preemptive endovascular intervention. However, surgical intervention should be considered for patients with specific indications including continuous aneurysm sac enlargement, presence of symptoms, suspicions of migration of stent-graft with endoleak, and infection.

OBJECTIVE: Post implantation syndrome (PIS) is an early systemic inflammatory response following endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). The response is variable in patients and the clinical significance of PIS upon outcomes is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and prognostic implication of PIS.
METHODS: Systematic literature review and analysis was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines of PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible English-language studies regarding PIS after infrarenal EVAR were included, after removing duplicates.
RESULTS: After screening, 31 studies were included. A total of 2847 patients were reviewed, with mean age of 70.7 years, of which 2012 (90.4%) were male, with a pooled mean follow-up of 26.1 months. PIS was reported in 25.3% of cases, with mean aneurysm diameter of 56.4 cm. Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts were utilized in 794 patients (27.9%) with polyester in 1839 (64.6%). White blood cell count, C-reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and IL-10 levels were all significantly elevated postoperatively. Thirty-day outcomes included type I endoleak rate of 0.8%, type II endoleak rate of 1.7%, reintervention rate of 0.35%, and mortality rate of 0.25%. Subgroup pooled analysis of patients with PIS (n = 309) vs No-PIS (n = 691) revealed that polyester (n = 642), rather than PTFE (n = 234) grafts, were associated with a higher rate of PIS (94.8% vs 3.7%; P = .0001), White blood cell count was higher in the PIS group both preoperatively (7.61 vs 6.76 × 109/L; P = .04) and postoperatively (15.0 vs 9.8 × 109/L; P = .0007) and IL-6 levels were higher in the PIS group postoperatively (98.6 vs 25.2 pg/mL; P = .02). Aneurysm diameter and amount of chronic or new thrombus within the aneurysm sac was not identified as a risk factor for PIS. Pooled outcomes of patients with PIS vs No-PIS demonstrated a significantly higher rate of 30-day mortality (0.6% vs 0%; P = .03) and major adverse cardiac events (5.8% vs 0.43%; P < .0001) without any differences seen in reintervention or 30-day type I or type II endoleaks.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that polyester grafts are strongly associated with PIS compared with PTFE. Interestingly, this report is suggestive of an association between 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiac events and PIS. Given these clinical sequelae, consideration for use of PTFE over polyester grafts to reduce the incidence of PIS may be a simple step to improve overall outcome. Further, exploration of the relationship between inflammatory mediators associated with PIS and mortality and cardiac complications may engender deeper understanding of risks, leading to eventual mitigation of harm for patients experiencing PIS.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the technical and clinical outcomes of fenestrated thoracic endovascular aortic repair (F-TEVAR) and chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (CH-EVAR) of aortic disease.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify studies on the management of thoracic aortic pathologies using chimney or fenestrated techniques published between 2000 and 2022. Individual studies provided at least one of the following essential outcomes: technical success, immediate and follow-up type I endoleak, 30-day and aorta-related mortality, cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency.
RESULTS: 24 chimney (1106 patients) and 21 fenestrated technique studies (1040 patients) were included. The scope of the study encompassed various thoracic aortic conditions, such as thoracic aortic dissection, thoracic aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic ulcer, and other thoracic aortic diseases. Technical success was defined as the handling of the principal ailment affecting the aorta, devoid of any instances of complications. The technical success rates were higher in fenestrated group compared with chimney group (98.0% vs. 95.8% p < 0.001), and the rate of type I endoleak either immediately or during follow-up was higher in the chimney technique group (9.3% vs. 1.3% p < 0.001, 4.0% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). The chimney technique group had higher 30-day mortality and aorta-related mortality than those in the fenestrated technique group (2.1% vs. 0.3% p < 0.001, 0.4% vs. 0.0% p < 0.001). Morbidity rates of cerebral events and supra-aortic branch patency were same in both groups (2.2% vs. 1.1% p = 0.116, 98.2% vs. 99.4% p = 0.094). The chimney technique group had longer operative time (110.0 min vs. 90.8 min p < 0.001). Two groups had same fluoroscopy time (34.0 min vs. 33.4 min p = 0.614).
CONCLUSIONS: The finding suggest that both the chimney and fenestrated techniques are efficacious in supra-aortic branch reconstruction. However, the fenestrated technique exhibits potential superiority as an interventional strategy, as it demonstrates a lower incidence of type 1 Endoleak, 30-day mortality, and aorta-related death following TEVAR.

UNASSIGNED: To provide a descriptive overview on the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular arch repair with inner branched endoprosthesis (bTEVAR) for the treatment of aortic arch pathologies.
UNASSIGNED: A comprehensive literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Pre-defined search terms were used to interrogate PubMed and OVID Medline databases from January 1999 to July 2022. Patient characteristics, indication for treatment, procedural data, mortality rates, postoperative complications, and reintervention rate during follow-up were evaluated.
UNASSIGNED: Nineteen articles were included, encompassing a total of 618 patients who received bTEVAR, most of which were double-branched (63.9%, n=395). The main indication for treatment was aneurysm secondary to chronic aortic dissection (38.8%, n=240/618) with a mean maximum diameter of 58.3±11.4 mm. Pooled mean technical success rate was 97.4±4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]=95.1%-99.5%); 2 and 3 patients required conversion to chimney technique and open repair, respectively. Among the pooled rates of early complications, postoperative stroke was the highest (10.5%; 95% CI=6.8%-14.3%). Thirty-day and in-hospital mortality rate was 5.5% (95% CI=2.6%-9.7%). Forty patients (6.5%; 95% CI=2.5%-9.5%) required early reintervention. During a mean follow-up of 20.7±13.5 months, the mortality rate was 18.2% (n=108/593; 95% CI=8.6%-20.6%) where 12 (11.1%) were aortic-related. Pooled late reintervention rate was 9.6% (95% CI=4.8%-14.3%). Comparison of demographics and outcomes found no significant difference between single and double bTEVAR.
UNASSIGNED: Branched thoracic endovascular aortic repair is a promising approach for aortic arch pathologies with a high technical success rate despite a steep learning curve. However, contemporary outcomes reflect that postoperative stroke remains the predominant concern. Further experience and long-term follow-up are required to sufficiently elucidate the safety and durability of bTEVAR in the management of aortic pathologies for high-risk patients.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review summarized the contemporary outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair with different inner branched stent-grafts for the management of aortic arch pathologies. Pooled results from nineteen studies with 618 patients demonstrated a high technical success rate and an acceptable mortality rate. However, postoperative stroke remains the major concern. Long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate its durability.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes after semi-conversion (open conversion with graft preservation) after failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and semi-conversion failure. Secondary outcomes were 30-day major systemic complications, endoleak recurrence, reinterventions, and overall survival.
METHODS: The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023421153). All studies reporting the outcomes of semi-conversions for failed EVAR were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. A random effects meta-regression of proportions was conducted using the double arcsine-Tukey transformation, given the frequent zero event rate in the primary outcome. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic.
RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the review after full text screening. A total of 196 patients underwent semi-conversion at a mean time from EVAR of 47.4 months, 68.9% in an elective setting. Mean age at conversion was 78.1 years, and the main indication was isolated endoleak type II (70.1% of cases). Aortic clamping was not necessary in 92.3% of semi-conversions; the aortic sac was opened in 96.1% of cases; in 93.3% of cases, ligation/suture of one or more culprit arteries were performed; and aortic neck banding was executed in 29.2%. At 30 days from surgery, the pooled mortality and the major systemic complications rates were 5.3% (I2 = 24.9%) and 13.4% (I2 = 54.3%), respectively. At follow-up, endoleak recurred after 12.6% semi-conversions (I2 = 83.2%), and the rate of reinterventions was 7% (I2 = 50.1%); the semi-conversion failure rate was 5.5% (I2 = 54.1%), and the overall survival was 84.6% (I2 = 33.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: Semi-conversions have acceptable 30-day mortality rates, but the early and mid-term risks of complications, reinterventions, ruptures, and infections are not negligible. This procedure might be an alternative to complete or partial graft explant in patients whom aortic cross-clamping is not ideal.

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the dominant treatment strategy for abdominal aortic aneurysms, encompassing 80% of all repairs in the United States. Endoleaks are ubiquitous and affect 30% of patients treated by EVAR, potentially leading to sac enlargement and increased risk of rupture. The care of EVAR patients requires long-term surveillance by a multidisciplinary team. Accordingly, physicians should be familiar with the fundamentals of endoleak management to achieve optimal outcomes, including timely referral for remediation or providing counseling and reassurance when needed.
PubMed and the Cochrane database were searched for articles published between January 2002 and December 2022 in English, addressing epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of endoleaks after EVAR. Endoleaks can be detected intraoperatively or years later, making lifelong surveillance mandatory. Type I and III have the highest risk of rupture (7.5% at 2 years and 8.9% at 1 year, respectively) and should be treated when identified. Intervention should be considered for other types of endoleak when associated with aneurysm sac growth larger than 5 mm based on current guidelines. Type II endoleaks are the most common, accounting for 50% of all endoleaks. Up to 90% of type II endoleaks resolve spontaneously or are not associated with sac enlargement, requiring only observation. Although the risk of rupture is less than 1%, cases that require reintervention are challenging. Recurrence is common despite endovascular treatment, and rupture can occur without evidence of sac growth. Type IV endoleaks and endotension are uncommon, are typically benign, and primarily should be observed.
Endoleak management depends on the type and presence of sac expansion. Type I and III endoleaks require intervention. Type II endoleaks should be observed and treated selectively in patients with significant sac expansion. Since endoleaks can appear any time after EVAR, at least 1 contrast-enhanced computed tomographic angiogram or duplex ultrasound by an experienced laboratory is recommended every 5 years.