Computed Tomography and Ultrasound in Follow-up of Patients after Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphane Elkouri ◽  
Jean M. Panneton ◽  
James C. Andrews ◽  
Bradley D. Lewis ◽  
Michael A. McKusick ◽  
...  
1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 617-623
Author(s):  
ITZHAK KRONZON ◽  
MATHEW VARKEY ◽  
PAUL A. TUNICK ◽  
THOMAS RILES ◽  
ROBERT ROSEN

Author(s):  
Elena S. Di Martino ◽  
Michel S. Makaroun ◽  
David A. Vorp

The early benefits of an endovascular approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment has been reported by many authors [1,2]. One of the major advantages is that endovascular repair of AAA (EVAR) as opposed to traditional open surgery, is not a major abdominal surgery. EVAR has been shown to be associated with a death rate comparable to that of surgical repair [3]. In short term follow-up, EVAR is associated with fewer complications and a more rapid recovery [2]. On the contrary very limited data is available on long term follow-up of EVAR patients. Graft-related secondary interventions affect a consistent percentage of the treated cases. The EUROSTAR study [4] recently reported 13% of reintervention in 15.4 months. Our surgical unit reported 20.6% across 48 months in a recent review of 242 cases [3]. The frequence and type of reintervention, whose principal cause is endoleak or perigraft flow, requires careful consideration.


Radiology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 279 (2) ◽  
pp. 410-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli Salloum ◽  
Antony Bertrand-Grenier ◽  
Sophie Lerouge ◽  
Claude Kauffman ◽  
Hélène Héon ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 191 (3) ◽  
pp. 808-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Hong ◽  
Jay P. Heiken ◽  
Gregorio A. Sicard ◽  
Thomas K. Pilgram ◽  
Kyongtae T. Bae

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document