z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair versus Snorkel Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Competing yet Complementary Strategies
Author(s) -
William Yoon
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
vascular specialist international
Language(s) - Uncategorized
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2288-7989
pISSN - 2288-7970
DOI - 10.5758/vsi.2019.35.3.121
Subject(s) - endovascular aneurysm repair , medicine , aneurysm , surgery , aortic aneurysm , aortic repair , radiology , abdominal aortic aneurysm
Juxtarenal/pararenal aortic aneurysms and type IV thoracoabdominal aneurysms pose particular technical challenges for endovascular repair as they involve the visceral segment in addition to insufficient infrarenal neck for the use of standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) devices. To overcome these challenges, complex EVAR techniques have been developed to extend the proximal landing zone cephalad with maintaining perfusion to vital aortic branches, thereby broadening the applicability of endografting from the infrarenal to the suprarenal aorta. Complex EVAR can be divided into two broad categories: fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and snorkel EVAR. FEVAR is a valid procedure with the standardized procedure, although it remains as a relatively complex procedure with a learning curve. Given time constraints for the custom fenestrated graft, snorkel EVAR may be an alternative for complex repairs in symptomatic or ruptured patients for whom custom-made endografts may not be immediately available. This article discusses these two most commonly used complex EVAR strategies.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here