Surgeon-Modified Fenestrated Stent-grafts for Zone 2 Endovascular Repair of Blunt Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injury: Early and Midterm Results

• Published in: Journal of endovascular therapy 2023-09, p.15266028231199036-15266028231199036
• Main Authors: Mavioglu, Levent, Iscan, Hakki Zafer, Askin, Goktan, Akkaya, Bekir Bogachan, Tumer, Naim Noran, Karahan, Mehmet, Unal, Ertekin Utku
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1526-6028; 1545-1550
• DOI: 10.1177/15266028231199036

AIMBlunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is a highly fatal surgical emergency and is treated with endovascular procedures. We aimed to analyze and report the early and midterm outcomes of surgeon-modified fenestrated stent-grafts (SMFSG) compared with other conventional endovascular methods in patients with BTAI repaired with zone 2 endovascular surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODSBefore and after the study was performed, from January 2015 to January 2020 for a period in which conventional endovascular treatments were used and from January 2020 to January 2023 for the second period in which the SMFSG technique was used. A total of 25 patients who underwent zone 2 endovascular repair for BTAI were included. The patients treated with conventional endovascular methods in the first period, chimney thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) (n=3 patients); Left subclavian artery (LSA)-covered (intentionally total) (n=12 patients) LSA-covered (LSAC) TEVAR; carotid-subclavian bypass TEVAR (n=2 patients) was defined as group 1, and the group of patients treated with SMFSG in the second period was defined as group 2. The primary endpoints of the study were technical success, defined as complete closure of BTAI, and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were aortic pathology-related morbidity, mortality, and re-interventions during the follow-up period. RESULTSThe mean age was 42.6±14.3 years, and 21 (84%) of the patients were male. The patients were compared with respect to the proximal landing zone, fluoroscopy time, duration of the procedure, length of intensive care unit stay, and hospital stay, no statistically significant difference was found between the 2 groups (p>0.05). The mean follow-up time of patients in group I was 46±9 months, while in group II, it was 14±6 months (p