Home > Riviste > International Angiology > Fascicoli precedenti > International Angiology 2018 October;37(5): > International Angiology 2018 October;37(5):384-9



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo


ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Free accessfree

International Angiology 2018 October;37(5):384-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.18.04024-5


lingua: Inglese

Endovascular treatments for type Ib endoleaks after aorto-iliac aneurysms exclusion: mid-term results

Claudio BIANCHINI MASSONI 1 , Chiara MASCOLI 2, Paolo PERINI 1, Tiziano TECCHIO 1, Enrico GALLITTO 2, Matteo AZZARONE 1, Mauro GARGIULO 2, Antonio FREYRIE 1, Gianluca FAGGIOLI 2, Andrea STELLA 2

1 Unit of Vascular Surgery, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy; 2 Unit of Vascular Surgery, DIMES, University of Bologna, Policlinico S. Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy

BACKGROUND: To report early and mid-term results of endovascular treatments for type Ib endoleaks (IbEL) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for aorto-iliac aneurysms (AAA).
METHODS: Patients with IbEL after EVAR were retrospectively analyzed. Cases of IbEL treated in two centers from January 2009 to February 2017 were considered. Patients’ demographics and comorbidities, interval between EVAR and IbEL diagnosis, type of endograft, site of sealing, oversize and length of iliac sealing zone, type of IbEL treatment were collected. Main endpoints were freedom from IbEL recurrence and freedom from reintervention.
RESULTS: Thirty-five IbEL were treated in 29 patients (mean age: 76±7years; male: 100%). Mean time between EVAR and IbEL detection was 43±30months. IbEL was symptomatic in 4 (14%) and bilateral in 6 (21%). Endograft was bifurcated in 26 patients (90%) and aorto-uniiliac in 3 (10%). Distal landing zone was achieved in common and external iliac artery in 33 (94%) and 2 cases (6%), respectively. Mean oversize of endograft limb was 11±9%, mean length of sealing zone was 22±15 mm. Endovascular treatments included: 34 iliac extensions (8 cases [24%] with hypogastric artery coverage), and 1 embolization. Concomitant embolization of hypogastric artery was performed in 3 (9%) cases. Technical success was 100%, with no procedure-related complication. Considering patients with hypogastric exclusion, buttock claudication developed in 2/8 cases (25%). Mean follow-up was 20±19 months. Freedom from IbEL was 100% and no reintervention was necessity for IbEL during follow-up. At 12, 24 and 36 months, survival was 88%, 82% e 61%, respectively, with no IbEL-related death.
CONCLUSIONS: IbEL can be easily managed by endovascular means, typically with distal extensions with landing zones in the common or external iliac artery. Mid-term results are favourable, with no recurrent IbEL or reintervention.

KEY WORDS: Endoleak - Aortic aneurysm, abdominal - Endovascular procedures

inizio pagina