Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Nov;87:71-77. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2022.07.013. Epub 2022 Sep 1.
Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair is an established customized treatment for aortic aneurysms with 3 current commercially available configurations for the superior mesenteric artery (SMA)-a single-wide scallop, large fenestration, or small fenestration, with the scallop or large fenestration most utilized. Outcomes comparing SMA single-wide scallops to large fenestrations with the Zenith fenestrated (ZFEN) device are scarce. As large fenestrations have the benefit of extending the proximal seal zone compared to scalloped configurations, we sought to determine the differences in seal zone and sac regression outcomes between the 2 SMA configurations.
We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained complex endovascular aneurysm repair database and included all patients treated with the Cook ZFEN device with an SMA scallop or large fenestration configuration at its most proximal build. All first postoperative computed tomography scans (1-30 days) were analyzed on TeraRecon to determine precise proximal seal zone lengths, and standard follow-up anatomic and clinical metrics were tabulated.
A total of 234 consecutive ZFEN patients from 2012 to 2021 were reviewed, and 137 had either a scallop or a large fenestration for the SMA as the proximal-most configuration (72 scallops and 65 large fenestrations) with imaging available for analysis. The mean follow-up was 35 months. The mean proximal seal zone length was 19.5 ± 7.9 mm for scallop versus 41.7 ± 14.4 mm for large fenestration groups (P < 0.001). There was no difference in sac regression between the scallop and large fenestration at 1 year (10.1 ± 10.9 mm vs. 11.0 ± 12.1, P = 0.63). Overall, 30-day mortality (1.3% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.51) and all-cause 3-year mortality (72.5% vs. 81.7%, P = 0.77) were not significantly different. Reinterventions within 30 days were primarily secondary to renal artery branch occlusions, with only 1 patient in the scallop group requiring reintervention for an SMA branch occlusion.
Despite attaining longer proximal seal lengths, large SMA fenestrations were not associated with a difference in sac regression compared to scalloped SMA configurations at a one-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in reinterventions or overall long-term survival between the 2 SMA strategies.
开窗型血管内动脉瘤修复术是一种成熟的定制化治疗方法,适用于具有 3 种当前市售的肠系膜上动脉(SMA)构型的主动脉瘤——单宽扇形、大开窗或小开窗,其中扇形或大开窗最常用。与 Zenith 开窗型(ZFEN)装置相比,SMA 单宽扇形与大开窗在治疗 SMA 方面的对比结果很少。由于大开窗相对于扇形构型能够延长近端密封区,因此我们旨在确定这两种 SMA 构型在密封区和瘤腔退缩方面的差异。
我们回顾性分析了前瞻性维护的复杂血管内动脉瘤修复数据库,纳入了在近端构建时使用 Cook ZFEN 装置治疗 SMA 扇形或大开窗构型的所有患者。所有初次术后计算机断层扫描(1-30 天)均在 TeraRecon 上进行分析,以确定精确的近端密封区长度,并列出标准的随访解剖学和临床指标。
2012 年至 2021 年共纳入 234 例连续的 ZFEN 患者,其中 137 例 SMA 近端构型为扇形或大开窗(72 例扇形和 65 例大开窗),可进行影像学分析。平均随访时间为 35 个月。扇形组的近端密封区长度为 19.5±7.9mm,大开窗组为 41.7±14.4mm(P<0.001)。1 年时,扇形组和大开窗组的瘤腔退缩无差异(10.1±10.9mm 比 11.0±12.1mm,P=0.63)。30 天死亡率(1.3%比 2.5%,P=0.51)和 3 年全因死亡率(72.5%比 81.7%,P=0.77)无显著差异。30 天内再干预主要是由于肾动脉分支闭塞,只有 1 例扇形组患者需要再干预 SMA 分支闭塞。
尽管 SMA 大开窗达到了更长的近端密封长度,但与 SMA 扇形构型相比,在 1 年随访时,瘤腔退缩没有差异。两种 SMA 策略之间在再干预或总体长期生存率方面没有显著差异。