Endovascular Aneurysm Repair by Combining Different Endografts: the Zenith Body and Endurant Limbs
- Author:
Jae Hoon LEE
1
;
Ki Hyuk PARK
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Endovascular procedures; Stents; Postoperative complications
- MeSH: Aneurysm; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Daegu; Endoleak; Endovascular Procedures; Extremities; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Korea; Male; Mortality; Pliability; Postoperative Complications; Stents
- From:Vascular Specialist International 2019;35(1):10-15
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: There are several commercially approved stent grafts in Korea for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Each device has its advantages and disadvantages based on the patient’s anatomy and the clinical situation. The Zenith device allows accurate and precise endograft placement, whereas the Endurant device has improved flexibility and trackability. We reviewed 5 cases in which a combination of the Zenith main body and the Endurant iliac limb was used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2010 to February 2015, 90 patients with AAA underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the Zenith body at Daegu Catholic University Hospital. Among them, 5 patients who underwent EVAR with the Zenith body and Endurant iliac limb were included in this study. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 74.20±3.35 years. All patients were men. The main reason for use of the Endurant iliac limb was aortoiliac angulation. Type III endoleak, stent migration, and stent kinking were not noted. Comparing 85 patients who received a Zenith endograft with 5 patients who received the hybrid endograft, there were no statistical differences in clinical characteristics, intraoperative details and post procedural complications. The mean admission duration was 19.00±13.60 days, and the mean follow-up duration was 1,018.11±925.34 days. In the hybrid endograft group, there was no mortality during the follow-up duration. CONCLUSION: Although the material, radial force, diameter, and length of the overlap zone differ between the two devices, EVAR with the hybrid endograft is safe and effective.
