Browsing by Author "Spanos, Konstantinos"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair After a Migrated EVAR Bypassing a Severely Kinked Previous Endograft
    (2024) Torrealba, Jose, I; Kolbel, Tilo; Rohlffs, Fiona; Spanos, Konstantinos; Panuccio, Giuseppe
    Purpose: To describe a novel technique to repair a juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JAAA) after failed endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with severely kinked anatomy. Technique: We present a patient who underwent an EVAR with a Medtronic Talent device 15 years ago and a proximal cuff extension 3 years earlier for an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Computed tomography (CT) done for a known gastritis showed a 12 cm JAAA, with a migrated endograft and a type Ia endoleak (EL). Endovascular repair was performed, accessing and navigating the aneurysmal sac outside the previous graft. The type I EL was reached and the suprarenal aorta catheterized. A 4-vessel inner-branched EVAR device was deployed in the distal thoracic aorta and their target vessels bridged through femoral access. A distal bifurcated component was deployed and both iliac limbs were extended to the native distal iliac arteries. Completion angiogram as well as early and 12-month CT showed a fully patent straight course branched EVAR with no ELs. Conclusion: Complex aortic reinterventions in the presence of previous EVAR can be performed by choosing a straighter course along and parallel to the previous endograft. Several technical aspects must be considered to successfully perform this type of reinterventions. Clinical Impact We present a technique of a complex endovascular aortic repair in a failed EVAR with kinked anatomy, navigating through the thrombosed aneurysmal sac, outside the previously placed endograft and thus obtaining a straighter path for a new branched endograft. The novelty lies in a different approach to repair a failed EVAR with a branched graft through an uncommon access on the side of the previous endograft, avoiding repeated displacement or occlusion of the new endograft. We exemplify the feasibility of such a complex procedure and highlight important steps to perform it, whether in the abdominal or even thoracic Aorta.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Non-Standard Management of Target Vessels With the Inner Branch Arch Endograft: A Single-Center Retrospective Study
    (2022) Torrealba, Jose, I; Spanos, Konstantinos; Panuccio, Giuseppe; Rohlffs, Fiona; Gandet, Thomas; Heidemann, Franziska; Tsilimparis, Nikolaos; Koelbel, Tilo
    Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate early and mid-term results of non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels with the use of the inner branch arch endograft in a single high-volume center. Material and methods: A single-center retrospective study including all patients undergoing implantation of an inner branch arch endograft from December 2012 to March 2021, who presented a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels (any bypass other than a left carotid-subclavian or landing in a dissected target vessel). Technical success, mortality, reinterventions, endoleak (EL), and aortic remodeling at follow-up were analyzed. Results: Twenty-four patients were included. In 17 (71%) cases, the non-standard management was related to innominate artery (IA) compromise (12 with IA dissection, 2 with short IA, 2 with short proximal aortic landing zone that required occlusion of IA, 1 with occluded IA after open arch repair). Two (8%) cases were related to an aberrant right subclavian artery (RSA), 1 patient (4%) due to the concomitant presence of a left vertebral artery (LVA) arising from the arch and an occluded left subclavian artery (LSA), and another patient presented with an occluded LSA distal to a dominant vertebral artery. Three (13%) cases were exclusively related to management in patients with genetic aortic syndromes. Twenty (83%) patients had a previous type A aortic dissection. Ten (42%) patients presented a thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm and 8 (33%) patients an arch aneurysm, 6 of them associated to false lumen (FL) perfusion. There were 2 (8%) perioperative minor strokes, and 1 patient with perioperative mortality. Seven patients presented an early type I endoleak, all resolved at follow-up. Seven patients required reinterventions during follow-up (7 reinterventions related to continuous false lumen perfusion, 3 related to Type Ia endoleak, 2 related to surgical bypass). All patients who presented with FL perfusion had complete FL thrombosis at follow-up. No patient presented aneurysm growth at follow-up. Conclusions: The use of the inner branch arch endograft with a non-standard management of the supraaortic target vessels is a possible option. Despite a high reintervention rate, regression or stability of the aneurysmal diameter was achieved in all the patients with follow-up.