• Commentary: Endovascular Sealing of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Do Current Data Justify Wider Use?

      Torella, Francesco; McWilliams, Richard G.; Fisher, Robert K. (SAGE Publications, 2018-04-12)
    • Stent Frame Movement Following Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing in the Abdominal Aorta

      Yafawi, Asma; orcid: 0000-0002-8390-9951; McWilliams, Richard G.; Fisher, Robert K.; England, Andrew; Karouki, Maria; Torella, Francesco (SAGE Publications, 2018-11-28)
      Purpose: 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.