This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lalka, S. G. Articles by Shafique, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lalka, S. G. Articles by Shafique, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Endovascular vs Open AAA Repair: Does Size Matter?

Michael C. Dalsing, MD

Alan P. Sawchuk, MD

Dolores F. Cikrit, MD

Shoaib Shafique, MD

Indianapolis, IN

Since the natural tendency of the aorta is to increase in diameter and tortuosity with age and since abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) increase in diameter and length over time, encroaching on the renal and hypogastric orifices, early repair of AAAs (when =4.0 cm) may allow greater applicability of the endovascular option because of more favorable aortoiliac morphology. Patients who present at an older age with larger AAAs should be more likely to be anatomically excluded from endovascular AAA repair. Over a 42-month period, 317 consecutive patients referred with aortoiliac aneurysms (infrarenal AAA =4.0 cm) were evaluated by one of the authors (SGL) for endovascular vs open repair based on computed tomography (CT) and angiographic imaging. The 10 anatomic exclusion criteria were those applicable to the Zenith ^® endograft (Cook, Inc), which currently is the most anatomically inclusive of the aortic endografts in commercial use in the United States. Based on their aortoiliac morphology, 212 patients were excluded from endovascular repair and 105 were included as acceptable anatomic candidates. Age, AAA size, and the reason(s) for exclusion were recorded for each patient. By use of Student's t test and logistic and linear regression analyses, the groups were compared by age, AAA size, and age + size. There was no significant difference in patient age or AAA size distribution between the group of patients excluded from endovascular repair based on aortoiliac morphology compared to those who met the inclusion criteria. Patients with small AAAs (4.0–5.4 cm) had similar age distribution as those with large (=5.5 cm) AAAs. The majority of patients (87%) were excluded based on proximal aortic neck morphology. The presence of aortoiliac morphology that precludes endovascular repair is independent of patient age or AAA size at presentation. A patient presenting with a small (4.0–5.4 cm) AAA is not more likely to be a candidate for endovascular repair than a patient with a large AAA.

Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Vol. 39, No. 4, 307-315 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/153857440503900402


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?