Journal Home
Search for

Volume 45, Issue 3, Pages 487-492 (March 2007)


View previous. 16 of 65 View next.

Twenty consecutive cases of endograft repair of traumatic aortic disruption: Lessons learned

Presented at the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Eastern Vascular Society, Washington, DC, Sept 28-30, 2006.

David G. Neschis, MDaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Sina Moaine, MDb, Rao Gutta, MDa, Kirk Charles, MDa, Thomas M. Scalea, MDc, William R. Flinn, MDa, Bartley P. Griffith, MDb

Received 9 October 2006; accepted 15 November 2006. published online 26 January 2007.

Objectives

Endograft repair holds considerable promise in the treatment of traumatic disruption of the thoracic aorta because patients often have multiple coexisting injuries further complicating traditional open repair. In addition, patients are often young, with an aortic anatomy dissimilar to those with atherosclerotic aneurysms. As a result, techniques for endograft repair have to be refined accordingly.

Methods

The records of 20 consecutive cases of traumatic aortic disruption treated by endograft repair at a single institution were reviewed.

Results

Mean patient age was 40 years (range, 17 to 88 years), and 17 (85%) of 20 patients were men. All cases were completed. There were no procedure related deaths, but four (20%) patients died of their co-injuries. Only two (10%) of 20 required a graft >28 mm in diameter, and nine (45%) aortas were small enough to require use of 23-mm abdominal cuffs. Six (30%) of 20 cases required complete or partial coverage of the left subclavian artery. Placement of a proximal extension was required in one patient for a type I endoleak. A graft collapse occurred in one patient that required surgical removal and aortic repair.

Conclusions

Endovascular repair of traumatic aortic disruption can be accomplished in most cases. Compared with atherosclerotic aneurysms, the proximal thoracic aorta tends to be smaller and the arch angle tighter in an aorta 19mm in diameter. This frequently necessitates the use of smaller devices and less stiff wires. Surgeons should be prepared to cover the left subclavian artery if needed, have a wide range of device sizes in stock to avoid over-sizing, and show restraint if the anatomy appears unsuitable.

a Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md

b Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Md

c R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, Md.

Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: David G. Neschis, MD, Assistant Professor of Surgery, Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, 22 S. Greene St, Room N4W66, Baltimore, MD 21201.

 Competition of interest: none.

CME article

PII: S0741-5214(06)02091-X

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2006.11.038


View previous. 16 of 65 View next.