scholarly journals Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Follow-up with Noninvasive Vascular Elastography in a Canine Model

Radiology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 279 (2) ◽  
pp. 410-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli Salloum ◽  
Antony Bertrand-Grenier ◽  
Sophie Lerouge ◽  
Claude Kauffman ◽  
Hélène Héon ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 2161-2169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antony Bertrand-Grenier ◽  
Sophie Lerouge ◽  
An Tang ◽  
Eli Salloum ◽  
Eric Therasse ◽  
...  

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 617-623
Author(s):  
ITZHAK KRONZON ◽  
MATHEW VARKEY ◽  
PAUL A. TUNICK ◽  
THOMAS RILES ◽  
ROBERT ROSEN

1996 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 166-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Marston ◽  
Enrique Criado ◽  
Christopher A. Baird ◽  
Blair A. Keagy

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.


2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphane Elkouri ◽  
Jean M. Panneton ◽  
James C. Andrews ◽  
Bradley D. Lewis ◽  
Michael A. McKusick ◽  
...  

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

1995 ◽  
Vol 165 (6) ◽  
pp. 1473-1479 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Rozenblit ◽  
M L Marin ◽  
F J Veith ◽  
J Cynamon ◽  
S I Wahl ◽  
...  

Radiology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 285 (3) ◽  
pp. 1032-1041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Boos ◽  
Olga R. Brook ◽  
Jieming Fang ◽  
Nathaniel Temin ◽  
Alexander Brook ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regula S von Allmen ◽  
Florian Dick ◽  
Thomas R Wyss ◽  
Roger M Greenhalgh ◽  
◽  
...  

Endografts for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm were first reported in the late 1980s and commercially available grafts were developed rapidly during the 1990s. This prompted a head-to-head comparison of the new, less invasive, endovascular technology with the existing gold standard of open repair. The first and largest randomised trial of open versus endovascular repair for large aneurysms started in the UK in 1999. Other trials comparing open and endovascular repair followed in the Netherlands, France and the US. Only the UK trial has reported long-term follow-up to 10 years. This has shown no statistically significant difference in long-term survival after open or endovascular repair. Aneurysm-related mortality curves converged at six years, which is described as endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) ‘catch up’ on open repair. It appears that this convergence is probably largely attributable to secondary sac rupture after endovascular repair, which is fatal in about two-thirds of cases. At this point, we have reached a crossroads and only longer-term follow-up data can provide the vital answer to the outcome of endovascular repair in the long run. This article gives a brief overview of the development and the current evidence of endovascular aortic repair and discusses the most important factors that are leading the way to the future of this technology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document