English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective  In endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), proximal type 1A endoleaks can occur as a result of hostile neck anatomy or over- or undersizing of the endograft. As the current standard is based on the diameter or average of the short and long axes in a central lumen reconstruction image, it can falter in irregularly shaped aortic necks. An alternative method is circumference-based, therefore minimizing the measurement error. In this study we aimed to assess the degree of discrepancy between both methods and the association of this discrepancy with the occurrence of endoleak type 1A.    Methods  All patients with early (<30 days post-operative) endoleak type 1A after elective EVAR at our center between 2004 and 2016 were identified for a retrospective case-control study. Control patients were matched based on hostile neck anatomy, such as calcification, thrombus, reverse taper, and β-angulation. The aortic neck diameter was measured using the traditional, diameter-based method as well as an alternative method, based on the circumference of the aortic neck.    Results  In 482 EVAR patients, 18 early endoleak type 1A cases were found (3.9%). After exclusion, 12 cases remained and 48 matching controls were found. No significant differences were found between the two measuring methods at any level below the renal arteries. The inter-observer variability was significant for the D(mean) (0.4 ± 1.69 mm, P = .02) and was larger than the D(circ) method (-0.1 ± 1.03 mm, P = .35). In only four out of 12 cases the endograft size was 10–20% larger than the D(mean) and D(circ) measurements. The differences between the diameter of the D(mean) and D(circ) and the chosen endograft were smaller for the case group (-8 ± 25.6% and -7 ± 24%) than for the control group. (-12.4 ± 12.4% and -11 ± 10.7%).    Conclusion  The difference between the D(mean) and D(circ) methods for aortic neck measurement was not large enough to play a significant role in the incidence of endoleak type 1A. Inadequate oversizing and considerable β-angulation of the aortic neck may have been the cause of endoleak type 1A in this population. Robust and well-investigated sizing methods are paramount for accurate endograft sizing and prevention of endoleak type 1A. Therefore the lack of studies in this field and a sizeable inter-observer variability do not justify the widespread reliance on the traditional diameter-based methods for endograft sizing.

Endograft Sizing for Endovascular Aortic Repair and Incidence of Endoleak Type 1A