Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorYafawi, Asma; orcid: 0000-0002-8390-9951
dc.contributor.authorMcWilliams, Richard G.
dc.contributor.authorFisher, Robert K.
dc.contributor.authorEngland, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorKarouki, Maria
dc.contributor.authorTorella, Francesco
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-17T01:50:43Z
dc.date.available2020-12-17T01:50:43Z
dc.date.issued2018-11-28
dc.identifierdoi: 10.1177/1526602818814548
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Endovascular Therapy, volume 26, issue 1, page 54-61
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10034/624095
dc.descriptionFrom Crossref journal articles via Jisc Publications Router
dc.descriptionHistory: epub 2018-11-28, issued 2018-11-28
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To investigate the incidence and extent of stent frame movement after endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) in the abdominal aorta and its relationships to aneurysm growth and the instructions for use (IFU) of the Nellix endograft. Methods: A retrospective single-center study was conducted to review the clinical data and computed tomography (CT) images of 75 patients (mean age 76±7.6 years; 57 men) who underwent infrarenal EVAS and had a minimum 1-year follow-up. The first postoperative CT scan at 1 month and the subsequent scans were used to measure the distances between the proximal end of the stent frames and a reference visceral vessel using a previously validated technique. Device migration was based on the Society of Vascular Surgery definition of >10-mm downward movement of either Nellix stent frame in the proximal landing zone; a more conservative proximal displacement measure (downward movement ⩾4 mm) was also recorded. Patients were categorized according to adherence to the old (2013) or new (2016) Nellix IFU. Aneurysm diameter was measured for each scan; a change ⩾5 mm was deemed indicative of aneurysm growth. Results: Over a median follow-up of 24 months (range 12–48), proximal displacement ⩾4 mm occurred in 42 (56%) patients and migration >10 mm in 16 (21%), with similar incidences in the right and left stent frames. Proximal displacement was significantly more frequent among patients whose anatomy did not conform to any IFU (p=0.025). Presence of aneurysm growth ⩾5 mm was observed in 14 (19%) patients and was significantly associated with proximal displacement ⩾4 mm (p=0.03). Conclusion: Infrarenal EVAS may be complicated by proximal displacement and migration, particularly when performed outside the IFU. The definition of migration used for endovascular aneurysm repair may be inappropriate for EVAS; a new consensus on definition and measurement technique is necessary.
dc.publisherSAGE Publications
dc.sourcepissn: 1526-6028
dc.sourceeissn: 1545-1550
dc.subjectRadiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
dc.subjectCardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
dc.titleStent Frame Movement Following Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing in the Abdominal Aorta
dc.typearticle
dc.date.updated2020-12-17T01:50:42Z


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record