Laparoscopic ligation of Type II endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair: A systematic review

Vascular ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 657-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Wee ◽  
Thomas Marjot ◽  
Kirtan Patel ◽  
Vamsee Bhrugubanda ◽  
Andrew MTL Choong

Introduction The clinical significance of Type II endoleak remains contentious; the strategies used for its management have continued to expand. We systematically review the literature and comprehensively appraise the effectiveness of laparoscopic intervention in the management of this common complication. Methods A systematic search was performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines on MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for relevant articles reporting laparoscopic surgery of Type II endoleak post-endovascular aortic repair. Results Thirteen studies representing 40 patients were investigated. Mean age was 72.7 years, and proportion of males was 90.0%. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists grade II and above and underwent standard infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair. The mean duration of operation was 130.2 min, with a mean blood loss across of 173.8 mL. The overall technical success rate was 90% (27/30). Two patients required reoperation within 24 h, with further lumbar ligations that were successful. One other patient required conversion to open surgery due to significant bleeding at the dorsal aorta. The perioperative and 30-day mortality rate was 2.5% (1/40). The mean length of hospital stay was 3.7 days (range 1 to 10 days). The mean length of follow-up was 36.7 months (range 3 to 103.2 months), where the rate of recurrence was 22.5% (9/40). Conclusions Laparoscopic ligation of feeding vessels causing Type II endoleak is potentially an alternative treatment after failed standard endovascular embolization, particularly in select centres with necessary resources and capabilities.

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 860.e1-860.e7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christos V. Ioannou ◽  
Dimitrios K. Tsetis ◽  
Dimitrios G. Kardoulas ◽  
Pavlos G. Katonis ◽  
Asterios N. Katsamouris

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
Salman Mirza ◽  
Shahnawaz Ansari

We present a case of a 72-year-old male with an abdominal aortic aneurysm status post-endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Follow-up imaging demonstrated an enlarging type II endoleak and attempts at transarterial coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery were unsuccessful. The patient underwent image-guided percutaneous translumbar type II endoleak repair using XperGuide (Philips, Andover, MA USA).


2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Bailey ◽  
Simon J. McPherson ◽  
Max A. Troxler ◽  
A. Howard S. Peach ◽  
Jai V. Patel ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-941 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Piazza ◽  
Paolo Frigatti ◽  
Paolo Scrivere ◽  
Stefano Bonvini ◽  
Franco Noventa ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 94-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liana Kumar ◽  
Prue Cowled ◽  
Margaret Boult ◽  
Stuart Howell ◽  
Robert Fitridge

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. e94-e95
Author(s):  
Pasqualino Sirignano ◽  
Laura Capoccia ◽  
Wassim Mansour ◽  
Sonia Ronchey ◽  
Federico Accrocca ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiyi Li ◽  
Peiyong Hou

Purpose:To investigate the efficacy and safety of preoperative side branch embolization or intraoperative sac embolization for preventing type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed to identify studies that evaluated the outcomes of sac embolization vs no embolization or side branch embolization vs no embolization in patients who received EVAR. Among the 904 studies screened, 17 studies with 2084 participants were included in this review. Outcome measures included the type II endoleak rate, the reintervention rate for type II endoleaks, the incidence of types I/III endoleaks, and the rate of complications. Fixed (no heterogeneity) or random effects models were constructed for each outcome; the results are presented as the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: The sac embolization group had significantly lower type II endoleak (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p<0.001) and reintervention (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.33, p<0.001) rates than the no embolization group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were found for the type I/III endoleak rate (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.37, p=0.21) or complication rate (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.70, p=0.77). Compared with no embolization, side branch embolization was also associated with a decrease in type II endoleak (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60, p<0.001) and reinterventions (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27, p<0.001). One severe procedure-related complication (fatal colon ischemia) was reported in the side branch embolization group. Conclusion: Sac embolization and side branch embolization are safe and effective in preventing type II endoleaks. Further randomized trials are needed to directly compare the clinical outcomes of these procedures.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document