Comparison of fenestrated endografts and the snorkel/chimney technique. Journal of vascular surgery Lee, J. T., Lee, G. K., Chandra, V. n., Dalman, R. L. 2014; 60 (4): 849–56; discussion 856–57

Abstract

Recent approval by the Food and Drug Administration of custom fenestrated endografts has increased endovascular options for patients with short-neck or juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). We sought to compare the early learning curve at a single institution of fenestrated repair vs the snorkel technique.From 2009 to 2013, we performed 57 consecutive snorkel procedures for juxtarenal AAAs in an Institutional Review Board-approved prospective cohort, and since the summer of 2012, we gained access to the Food and Drug Administration-approved custom fenestrated device. Patient demographics, imaging, and operative techniques were compared between the first 15 cases for each of the snorkel (sn-EVAR) and fenestrated (f-EVAR) endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) techniques.Patient demographics and AAA morphology on preoperative imaging were similar between the groups. Operative time tended to be similar in the 3- to 4-hour range, with more fluoroscopy time and less contrast material used in f-EVAR than in sn-EVAR (P < .05) because of differing strategies of renal premarking. Larger delivery systems for f-EVAR required a higher rate of iliac conduits (40% vs 0%). Perioperative complications, short-term renal patency rates, and evidence of acute kidney injury were similar.The early experience of f-EVAR was similar to that of sn-EVAR in terms of patient demographics, case selection, and procedural characteristics. A significant portion of the learning curve for both procedures, particularly for f-EVAR, lies in the preoperative planning of fenestrations and the cannulation of branch vessels. Similar short-term postoperative outcomes between these two particular techniques indicate that both will have utility in the treatment of high-risk patients with complex anatomy.

View details for PubMedID 24785682