PDF herunterladen
Semin intervent Radiol 2024; 41(06): 581-587
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1800953
Review Article

Aortic Endograft Sizing

Andrew T. Ray
1   Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
,
Luke R. Wilkins
1   Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
,
Daniel P. Sheeran
1   Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
,
W. Darrin Clouse
2   Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
,
J. Fritz Angle
1   Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) have become widely accepted techniques for the treatment of aortic aneurysms and dissections. Central to the success of TEVAR and EVAR is accurate endograft sizing. Key aspects to be discussed in this article include the importance of preprocedural centerline imaging with computed tomography angiography to evaluate the proximal and distal seal zones. This article will review TEVAR and EVAR endograft sizing, providing the interventionalist with practical advice to optimize patient selection and to improve procedural success.

Keywords

TEVAR - EVAR - endograft - sizing - interventional radiology


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
20. Dezember 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Han SM, Elsayed RS, Ham SW. et al. Comparison of intravascular ultrasound- and centerline computed tomography-determined aortic diameters during thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg 2017; 66 (04) 1184-1191
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Herman CR, Charbonneau P, Hongku K. et al. Any nonadherence to instructions for use predicts graft-related adverse events in patients undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2018; 67 (01) 126-133
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Charlton-Ouw KM, Ikeno Y, Bokamper M, Zakhary E, Smeds MR. GREAT participants. Aortic endograft sizing and endoleak, reintervention, and mortality following endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 2021; 74 (05) 1519-1526.e2
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Rowse JW, Morrow K, Bena JF, Eagleton MJ, Parodi FE, Smolock CJ. Iliac conduits remain safe in complex endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg 2019; 70 (02) 424-431
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Jaffan AAA, Prince EA, Hampson CO, Murphy TP. The preclose technique in percutaneous endovascular aortic repair: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2013; 36 (03) 567-577
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 DuBois BG, Houben IB, Khaja MS. et al. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the setting of compromised distal landing zones. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 111 (01) 237-245
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Piazza M, Squizzato F, Xodo A. et al. Determination of optimal and safest proximal sealing length during thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2021; 62 (03) 423-430
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kuo EC, Veranyan N, Johnson CE. et al. Impact of proximal seal zone length and intramural hematoma on clinical outcomes and aortic remodeling after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for aortic dissections. J Vasc Surg 2019; 69 (04) 987-995
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 van Keulen JW, Moll FL, Tolenaar JL, Verhagen HJM, van Herwaarden JA. Validation of a new standardized method to measure proximal aneurysm neck angulation. J Vasc Surg 2010; 51 (04) 821-828
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar