弹簧圈栓塞治疗腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后持续性Ⅱ型内漏

目的探讨分支血管栓塞治疗腹主动脉瘤腔内修复(endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR)术后持续性Ⅱ型内漏的效果。方法回顾性分析2014年6月～2018年6月312例EVAR资料,268例资料完整,复查主动脉CTA诊断Ⅱ型内漏34例(12.7%),其中5例为持续性Ⅱ型内漏,均为男性,年龄(64.8±10.0)岁,行分支血管弹簧圈栓塞。结果 5例Ⅱ型内漏均为肠系膜下动脉逆灌注瘤腔,其中经肠系膜上动脉-肠系膜下动脉侧支血管汇入瘤腔3例,腹腔干动脉-肠系膜下动脉侧支血管汇入瘤腔2例。术前主动脉CTA和术中DSA造影均见迂曲血管及支架外瘤腔内对比剂着色。5例均经股动脉入路,避开重要分支血管行弹簧圈栓塞瘤腔供血分支动脉,均获技术成功。术后随访3～18个月,平均10个月,Ⅱ型内漏供血分支动脉栓塞确切,瘤腔体积缩小率4.8%～25.5%,(12.7±8.1)%,无严重并发症发生。结论对于EVAR术后持续性Ⅱ型内漏,分支血管栓塞治疗操作简单安全,疗效确切。     

多通道栓塞治疗腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后腰动脉来源Ⅱ型内漏的疗效分析

目的:探讨腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后腰动脉来源的Ⅱ型内漏多通道栓塞治疗的近中期疗效。方法:回顾性分析2017年10月至2020年11月河南省人民医院血管外科治疗的8例腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后腰动脉来源的Ⅱ型内漏患者的临床资料。结果:8例患者均成功使用弹簧圈及康派特医用胶与碘油混合栓塞剂治疗腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后腰动脉来源的Ⅱ...     

经左旋髂深动脉栓塞治疗腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后Ⅱ型内漏1例报告

正Ⅱ型内漏是腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术(endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair,EVAR)后最常见的并发症。自1997年Schie首次报道经动脉栓塞治疗EVAR术后Ⅱ型内漏以来~([1]),该方法已成为治疗EVAR后Ⅱ型内漏的主要手段。南华大学附属第二医院血管外科应用弹簧圈栓塞治疗Ⅱ型内漏1例。报告如下。1病历简介病人男性,72岁。因"发现腹部搏动性包块5 d"于2012-02-11入院,无腹痛腹胀,无腹泻,无发热,既往有冠     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中弹簧圈联合纤维蛋白胶瘤腔填充技术预防术后Ⅱ型内漏

目的 探讨腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术（endovascular aneurysm repair,EVAR）中弹簧圈联合纤维蛋白胶填塞瘤腔预防术后Ⅱ型内漏的技术可行性和有效性。方法 对1例存在Ⅱ型内漏高危风险的腹主动脉瘤患者,为预防EVAR术后Ⅱ型内漏,在术中于瘤腔内联合填塞弹簧圈和纤维蛋白胶,同时术中采取经皮导管预置、球囊阻断等技术以确保材料精准填塞。结果 手术结束时造影显示支架及远端动脉血流通畅,未见Ⅰ、Ⅲ型内漏,延迟显影未见瘤腔侧支反流血,手术成功。患者手术时间为118 min,术中出血量20 mL。术后患者无结肠缺血、异位栓塞等并发症发生,于术后3 d顺利出院。术后6个月随访CT血管三维重建提示瘤腔完全血栓化,未见Ⅱ型内漏,瘤腔直径和体积均缩小。结论 EVAR术中弹簧圈联合纤维蛋白胶填充瘤腔技术预防术后Ⅱ型内漏安全有效,且操作简单、可行性强,术中经皮瘤腔留置导管及球囊适时阻断是该技术成功实施的关键点。     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中髂动脉瘤的处理策略

目的:探讨腹主动脉瘤合并髂动脉瘤的腔内修复术(EVAR)方法。方法:回顾性分析2007年8月—2014年3月35例腹主动脉瘤合并髂动脉瘤行EVAR术患者资料,其中9例合并单侧髂内动脉瘤,1例合并双侧髂内动脉瘤,14例合并单侧髂总动脉瘤(直径18 mm),11例合并双侧髂总动脉瘤,所用腔内技术包括栓塞髂内动脉瘤后覆盖,髂内动脉瘤单纯覆盖,"喇叭口"支架,以及"三明治"技术重建一侧髂内动脉等。结果:所有腔内技术均获得成功,手术时间(125±40)min,出血量(173±65)m L。术中发现内漏8例(22.9%),其中I型内漏4例(近端2例,远端2例)均经球囊扩张后内漏消失,III型内漏1例,经扩张及部分加弹簧圈栓塞后内漏消失,II型内漏2例及IV型内漏1例,均未予处理。35例术后随访6~60个月,无动脉瘤破裂,2例术后6个月发现腹主动脉瘤体增大,造影确诊远端I型内漏,经弹簧圈栓塞后内漏消失,其余33例瘤体直径无增大。结论:对于合并髂动脉瘤的腹主动脉瘤患者,有效处理髂内动脉,然后根据髂总动脉直径选择合适的治疗方法可以达到理想的近期效果。     

彩色多普勒超声辅助无造影剂腹主动脉瘤合并髂内动脉瘤腔内覆膜支架修复术

目的探索常规多普勒超声辅助腹主动脉瘤腔内覆膜支架修复术(EVAR)的技术可行性和有效性。方法对1例造影剂肾功能受损的腹主动脉瘤合并左侧髂总动脉瘤和左侧髂内动脉瘤患者,行无造影剂的术中常规超声辅助EVAR和左侧髂内动脉瘤栓塞术,总结该患者的临床资料。结果透视下借助常规超声辅助,主动脉支架释放成功,左侧髂内动脉瘤弹簧圈栓塞成功,腹主动脉瘤及左侧髂总动脉瘤隔绝成功。术中超声显示来自肠系膜下动脉的Ⅱ型内漏,右侧髂支Ⅰb型内漏。患者的手术时间为120 min,术中出血量为20 m L。术后1周常规彩超显示,右侧髂支Ⅰb型内漏消失,来自肠系膜下动脉的Ⅱ型内漏仍然存在,于术后1周顺利出院。等待后续随访结果。结论常规超声辅助EVAR治疗解剖条件良好的腹主动脉瘤时,能清楚显示近远端锚定区域以及内漏情况,尤其适合存在碘造影剂禁忌的患者。     

腹主动脉瘤腔内治疗术后Ⅱ型内漏的单中心处理经验

目的探讨腹主动脉瘤腔内修复（EVAR）术后Ⅱ型内漏的处理。 方法回顾性分析2011年1月至2019年1月12例EVAR术后Ⅱ型内漏行外科干预患者的临床资料。7例经肠系膜上动脉-中结肠动脉-Riolan弓-左结肠动脉-肠系膜下动脉途径,栓塞动脉瘤腔及肠系膜下动脉起始部。2例经股动脉-骼内动脉-骼腰动脉途径,栓塞动脉瘤腔及腰动脉起始部。2例经近远端移植物与动脉壁之间进入瘤腔应用弹簧圈栓塞瘤腔;1例行开腹剖开瘤体,瘤腔内缝扎腰动脉及肠系膜下动脉后,保留支架。 结果患者均手术成功,无手术死亡及并发症。出院后平均随访（7.2±1.1）个月,1例患者因心脑血管意外死亡,其余患者无腰腹疼,影像学复查提示有4例行动脉栓塞患者再次复发,入院二次行栓塞治疗。 结论Ⅱ型内漏在腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后比较常见,通畅的肠系膜下动脉、多支腰动脉和动脉瘤腔内血栓体积较小是Ⅱ型内漏发生的高危因素。对造成瘤体持续显著增长者可积极干预,治疗性干预有复发的可能性,预防性干预可能带来不必要的风险需要更严格的选择患者。     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后II型内漏的处理

背景与目的 II型内漏是腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术（EVAR）术后相对常见的并发症,然而目前对其是否需要手术干预及干预时机方面尚无统一的认识。因此,本研究探讨EVAR术后II型内漏的手术方法,及其临床效果与安全性,以期为临床提供给参考。方法 回顾中南大学湘雅医院血管外科2016年1月—2020年12月期间行EVAR手术治疗的腹主动脉瘤患者临床与随访资料,分析EVAR术后发生II型内漏的发生率,以及其中行二次手术干预的患者的疗效、并发症及随访情况。结果 期间共282例行EVAR患者,术后随访1~54个月,平均17.9个月。随访过程中,发现单纯II型内漏68例（24.1%）,其中31例患者（45.6%）II型内漏自愈;25例患者（36.8%）瘤体直径无明显增大;12例患者（17.6%）瘤体直径增加>10 mm或表现有相应的临床症状行二次干预。二次干预患者中,10例行经皮动脉栓塞术,其中8例患者行责任动脉栓塞者随诊12个月无内漏复发,瘤体直径缩小;2例栓塞后术后随访24个月II型内漏仍存在,但瘤体直径无继续增大;2例行开放手术,其中1例术后出现急性心肌梗死,行急诊PCI,术后顺利恢复出院,另1例术中大出血,住院时间延长至16 d。2例开放手术患者术后随访6个月以上,情况良好,内漏完全消失。结论 大部分EVAR术后II型内漏患者预后较好,而对于随访中瘤体直径增长较快及有临床症状者,栓塞责任血管可获得不错的临床效果;开放手术创伤相对较大,严重并发症发生率较高,选择需慎重。     

腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后Ⅱ型内漏发生的危险因素分析及其处理

目的 探讨腹主动脉瘤（AAA）腔内修复（EVAR）术后Ⅱ型内漏发生的影响因素。方法 回顾性分析2006年1月至2011年3月期间四川大学华西医院血管外科行EVAR术的197例AAA患者的临床资料,并探讨Ⅱ型内漏发生的影响因素。结果 197例患者行EVAR后发生Ⅱ型内漏18例。logistic回归分析结果显示,腰动脉数量每增加１根,发生Ⅱ型内漏的风险增加了0.822倍（OR=1.822,P=0.010）;最大腰动脉直径每增加1 mm,发生Ⅱ型内漏的风险增加了0.256倍（OR=1.256,P=0.040）。197例患者获访1～36个月,中位数为16.8个月。随访期间,1例瘤体直径于术后6个月时增长大于5 mm,给予经股动脉以弹簧圈栓塞肠系膜下动脉分支处理,术后内漏消失;余17患者的内漏自行封闭或瘤体直径无明显变化。结论 腰动脉数量和最大腰动脉直径均可影响Ⅱ型内漏的发生。如果持续性Ⅱ型内漏的瘤体直径无明显变化,可暂不处理,但应密切随访。     

高危复杂腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术临床分析

目的 评估应用多种腔内技术治疗高危复杂腹主动脉瘤的可行性.方法 2001年1月至2010年12月,共138例腹主动脉瘤患者接受腹主动脉腔内修复术(EVAR),其中9例患者为高危复杂性腹主动脉瘤.男性8例,女性1例,年龄26～87岁,平均67岁.其中2例近肾腹主动脉假性动脉瘤,5例近肾腹主动脉瘤,1例腹主动脉瘤合并双髂总动脉瘤及左侧髂内动脉瘤,1例EVAR术后右髂内动脉瘤.所采用的腔内技术包括:主动脉支架开窗技术和扇形技术2例,烟囱技术5例,球囊辅助下髂内动脉瘤腔内治疗1例和球囊辅助反转支架技术1例.结果 所有腔内技术均获得成功.术中支架释放后即刻发现内漏4例,其中1例患者为Ⅰ型和Ⅲ型内漏,经大动脉球囊扩张后内漏消失;2例Ⅰ型内漏,其中1例行弹簧栓栓塞成功,另1例行近端裸支架成功.1例Ⅱ型内漏,经随访瘤腔直径未增大,未处理.随访4～79个月,平均25.9个月.无动脉瘤破裂,动脉瘤瘤体直径均有不同程度的缩小.随访过程中7例患者的靶血管(肾动脉、肠系膜上动脉和髂内动脉)均保持通畅.1例髂内动脉重建支架术后18个月血栓形成,但无盆腔缺血等症状.结论 对于不能耐受手术的高危复杂腹主动脉瘤患者,选择合适的腔内技术可以增加EVAR术的成功率,近、中期效果满意.     

Type II endoleaks: predictable,preventable, and sometimes treatable?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of preoperative coil embolization of lumbar and inferior mesenteric arteries on the incidence of type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: The subjects were consecutive patients who underwent EVAR between January 1996 and January 2001. Patent aortic side branches were identified with preprocedural spiral computed tomographic scanning and calibrated angiography. Coil embolization was performed before EVAR. Patients were followed up with plain radiographs and ultrasound and dual phase spiral computed tomographic scans. Digital subtraction angiography was performed when endoleak was suspected. The outcome measures were the incidence of type II endoleaks and changes in maximum aortic sac diameter (Dmax). RESULTS: Forty patients underwent EVAR, with a median duration of follow-up of 24 months (range, 3 to 48 months). Before surgery, the inferior mesenteric artery was patent in 16 patients (45%) and the lumbar arteries in 21 patients (53%). Inferior mesenteric artery embolization was successful in 13 of 16 patients (81%). Lumbar embolization was attempted in 13 patients and was successful in eight (62%). During EVAR, successful sac exclusion was achieved in 38 patients (95%). None of the patients who underwent embolization before EVAR had type II endoleak develop, eight of 13 patients (62%) with patent lumbar arteries had endoleaks develop (P =.006), and three of these patients subsequently underwent successful coil embolization. Type II endoleak was associated with a 2.0-mm median increase in Dmax (P =.045). A 3.0-mm median reduction in Dmax was seen in the absence of type II endoleak (P =.002). CONCLUSION: Type II endoleaks are predictable, preventable, and sometimes treatable. Significant sac shrinkage occurs in the absence of lumbar endoleak but not in the presence of type II endoleak.     

Type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a conservative approach with selective intervention is safe and cost-effective

OBJECTIVES: The conservative versus therapeutic approach to type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) has been controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of the conservative approach of embolizing type II endoleak only when persistent for more than 6 months and associated with aneurysm sac growth of 5 mm or more. METHODS: Data for 486 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR were analyzed for incidence and outcome of type II endoleaks. Spiral computed tomography (CT) scans were reviewed, and patient outcome was evaluated at either office visit or telephone contact. Patients with new or late-appearing type II endoleak were evaluated with spiral CT at 6-month intervals to evaluate both persistence of the endoleak and size of the aneurysm sac. Persistent (>or=6 months) type II endoleak and aneurysm sac growth of 5 mm or greater were treated with either translumbar glue or coil embolization of the lumbar source, or transarterial coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery. RESULTS: Type II endoleaks were detected in 90 (18.5%) patients. With a mean follow-up of 21.7 +/- 16 months, only 35 (7.2%) patients had type II endoleak that persisted for 6 months or longer. Aneurysm sac enlargement was noted in 5 patients, representing 1% of the total series. All 5 patients underwent successful translumbar sac embolization (n = 4) or transarterial inferior mesenteric artery embolization (n = 4) at a mean follow-up of 18.2 +/- 8.0 months, with no recurrence or aneurysm sac growth. No patient with treated or untreated type II endoleak has had rupture of the aneurysm. The mean global cost for treatment of persistent type II endoleak associated with aneurysm sac growth was US dollars 6695.50 (hospital cost plus physician reimbursement). Treatment in the 30 patients with persistent type II endoleak but no aneurysm sac growth would have represented an additional cost of US dollars 200000 or more. The presence or absence of a type II endoleak did not affect survival (78% vs 73%) at 48 months. CONCLUSIONS: Selective intervention to treat type II endoleak that persists for 6 months and is associated with aneurysm enlargement seems to be both safe and cost-effective. Longer follow-up will determine whether this conservative approach to management of type II endoleak is the standard of care.     

Cyanoacrylate embolization of endoleaks after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Introduction: Type II endoleaks occur in up to a fifth of endoluminal repairs for abdominal aortic aneurysms and are commonly treated when aortic sac expansion can be demonstrated. Technical failure is common when catheter‐guided particulates or coil embolic agents are used. Presented here is a feasibility study using catheter‐directed N‐butyl‐2‐cyanoacrylate (Histoacryl, Braun, Tuttlingen, Germany) embolotherapy. Method: A retrospective review of the case notes of patients undergoing embolization procedures for type II endoleaks with expanding sacs was performed from this centre's cohort of endoluminal aortic repair patients under surveillance. Data on patients with type II endoleaks who were treated with either or both cyanoacrylate and coil embolization were extracted. The outcomes were then compared. Results: In total, five cases were identified, and four of these cases had both coil and glue embolization. Technical success was defined as endoleak closure proven on follow‐up computed tomographic imaging. Technical success was achieved in all four patients treated with intra‐sac cyanoacrylate. One case treated initially with coil embolization was successful. All patients had a computed tomographic scan at 3 months. One minor complication occurred that resolved without treatment. Discussion: Type II endoleaks after EVAR with expanding sacs require treatment. Percutaneous catheter‐directed cyanoacrylate embolization offers an alternative to coil or particulate embolization and, in this series, was found to be more likely to result in endoleak closure.     

Treatment of an early type II endoleak causing hemorrhage after endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

We report a case of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm emergently treated by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) that developed a primary type II endoleak leading to persistent blood loss and retroperitoneal hematoma increase. Coil embolization resolved this. Although to our knowledge there are no recommendations regarding this, our report suggests that early type II endoleaks occurring after emergency EVAR for ruptured AAA should be treated when it is associated with blood extravasation outside the aneurysm sac.     

Acute symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm secondary to endovascular stent graft associated type II endoleak

Endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR) is popular because of its low invasiveness and feasibility for high-risk patients. Endoleak is common after EVAR and is characterized by blood flow within the aneurysm sac but outside the stent graft. Type II or collateral endoleak commonly results from retrograde filling of the aneurysm from collateral visceral vessels, lumbar, inferior mesenteric, accessory renal or sacral arteries. Collateral leaks are generally thought to be benign and over half of the early leaks will seal spontaneously. Sporadically, collateral endoleak could lead to aneurysm sac pressurization and place the patient at ongoing risk of rupture. Herein, we report an uncommon case of early post-stent graft placement symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm associated with type II endoleak.     

Translumbar treatment of type II endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

The modality of treatment and the appropriate time point to treat type II endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR) remain controversial issues. The purpose of the present study was to assess the efficacy of translumbar embolization of type II endoleaks after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm repair. Eighty-four consecutive patients after EVAR were analyzed for the onset of type II endoleaks. Of these, five patients had experienced translumbar embolization after ineffective intraartrial approach to exclude the endoleak. A combination of several liquid embolic agents was used as sealant. Post-procedural contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) was used to document the outcome of the embolization. Translumbar embolization was successful in four patients. Complete sealing of the nidus was seen on CEUS 24 h after the procedure. In one patient with a duplication of the inferior vena cava, the procedure was aborted because an additional type Ib endoleak was found. The procedure was well tolerated by all patients. The translumbar approach to treat growing aneurysm sacs in patients with persistent type II endoleaks is safe and well tolerated. The immediate post-interventional outcome as documented on CEUS is promising. Long-term follow-ups are yet to be performed.     

Endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

PURPOSE: We sought to assess the role of endovascular techniques in the management of perigraft flow (endoleak) after endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHOD: We performed endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in 114 patients, using a variety of Gianturco Z-stent-based prostheses. Results were evaluated with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) at 3 days, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and every year after the operation. An endoleak that occurred 3 days after operation led to repeat CT scanning at 2 weeks, followed by angiography and attempted endovascular treatment. RESULTS: Endoleak was seen on the first postoperative CT scan in 21 (18%) patients and was still present at 2 weeks in 14 (12%). On the basis of angiographic localization of the inflow, the endoleak was pure type I in 3 cases, pure type II in 9, and mixed-pattern in 2. Of the 5 type I endoleaks, 3 were proximal and 2 were distal. All five resolved after endovascular implantation of additional stent-grafts, stents, and embolization coils. Although inferior mesenteric artery embolization was successful in 6 of 7 cases and lumbar embolization was successful in 4 of 7, only 1 of 11 primary type II endoleaks was shown to be resolved on CT scanning. There were no type III or type IV endoleaks (through the stent-graft). Endoleak was associated with aneurysm dilation two cases. In both cases, the aneurysm diameter stabilized after coil embolization of the inferior mesenteric artery. There were two secondary (delayed) endoleaks; one type I and one type II. The secondary type I endoleak and the associated aneurysm rupture were treated by use of an additional stent-graft. The secondary type II endoleak was not treated. CONCLUSIONS: Type I endoleaks represent a persistent risk of aneurysm rupture and should be treated promptly by endovascular means. Type II leaks are less dangerous and more difficult to treat, but coil embolization of feeding arteries may be warranted when leakage is associated with aneurysm enlargement.