Repair of integrity of the common femoral artery after endovascular interventions

  • O.A. Vlasenko National Institute of Surgery and Transplantology named after O.O. Shalimov NAMS of Ukraine, Kyiv
  • S.M. Furkalo National Institute of Surgery and Transplantology named after O.O. Shalimov NAMS of Ukraine, Kyiv
  • I.V. Khasyanova National Institute of Surgery and Transplantology named after O.O. Shalimov NAMS of Ukraine, Kyiv
  • V.A. Kondratiuk National Institute of Surgery and Transplantology named after O.O. Shalimov NAMS of Ukraine, Kyiv
Keywords: infrarenal aortic aneurysm; endovascular aneurysm repair; vascular closure devices.

Abstract

Objective — to determine the possibility of using percutaneous vascular closure devices during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).
Materials and methods. In clinic of National Institute of Surgery and Transplantology named after O.O. Shalimov NAMS of Ukraine we completed 133 EVAR. In 14 patients 21 vascular closure devices «Prostar XL» were used, which allowed to suture the artery defect after using the introducer up to 24 F. All patients were implanted «Endurant-II» bifurcated endoprostheses. The diameter of the delivery system of the main part and the contralateral leg was in all cases 18 F. In patients who had percutaneous stitching on one side, on the opposite side access was carried out through a traditional cross-section over a coupling suture with its subsequent layered stitching. Age of patients aged 61 to 75, all of them were male.
Results. The using of vascular closure devices during EVAR with large diameter introductor can significantly reduce the total time of intervention and blood loss. The effectiveness of using the «Prostar XL» was 81 %, which corresponds to the literature data at the stage of learning curve. There was no complication in the process of percutaneous stitching.
Conclusions. The lack of sectional access to the common femoral artery eliminated the deve-lopment of complications such as neuralgia, paresthesia, seroma, lymphostasis, suppuration of the postoperative wound. In patients who have bilateral stitching, the length of stay in a hospital has been shortened and started work earlier. In the planning stage of the intervention, thorough examination of the anatomy of the femur, iliac arteries and the features of the aneurysm is required with the help of the US and MSCT. When performing a puncture angiographic examination is mandatory.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Eikelboom JW, Mehta SR, Anand SS, Xie C, Fox KA, Yusuf S. Adverse impact of bleeding on prognosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2006 Aug 22;114(8):774-82. Epub 2006 Aug 14.

Schulz-Schüpke S, Helde S, Gewalt S, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices vs manual compression after femoral artery puncture: the ISAR-CLOSURE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:1981-7.

Noori VJ, Eldrup-Jørgensen J. A systematic review of vascular closure devices for femoral artery puncture sites. J. Vasc. Surg. 2018 Sep;68(3):887-99. Epub 2018 Jun 29.

Robertson L, Andras A, Colgan F, Jackson R. Vascular closure devices for femoral arterial puncture site haemostasis. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016 Mar 7;3:CD009541. Epub 2016 Mar 7.

Schwartz B, Burstein S, Economides C, et al. Review of vascular closure devices. Heart Institute, Good Samaritan Hospital, Los Angeles, California. 2011;19 (7).

Cox T, Blair L, Huntington C, Lincourt A, Sing R, Heniford BT. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing manual compression to vascular closure devices for diagnostic and therapeutic arterial procedures. Surg. Technol. Int. 2015 Nov; 27:32-44.

Barbash IM, Barbanti M, Webb J, et al. Comparison of vascular closure devices for access site closure after transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Eur. Heart. J. 2015;36:3370-9. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv417.

Haas PC, Krajcer Z, Diethrich EB. Closure of large percutaneous access site using the Prostar XL Percutaneous Vascular Surgery device. J. Endovasc. Surg. 1999;6:168-70.

Greenhalgh RM, Allison DJ, Bell PRF, et al. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. New. Engl. J. Med. 2010;362(20):1863-71.

Patel R, Sweeting M, Powell J, Greenhalgh RM, for the EVAR trial investigators. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in 15-years’ follow-up of the UK endovascular aneurysm repair trial 1 (EVAR trial 1): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2016;388(10058):2366-74.

Gimzewska M, Jackson AI, Yeoh SE, Clarke M. Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017 Feb 21;2:CD010185. Epub 2017 Feb 21.

Thomas C, Steger V, Heller S, Heuschmid М, Ketelsen D, Claussen CD, Brechtelet K. Safety and Efficacy of the Prostar XL Vascular Closing Device for Percutaneous Closure of Large Arterial Access Sites. Radiol. Res. Pract. 2013;2013:875484.

Haulon S, Hassen Khodja R, Proudfoot CW, Samuels E. A systematic literature review of the efficacy and safety of the Prostar XL device for the closure of large femoral arterial access sites in patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular aortic procedures. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2011;41(2):201-13.

Published
2019-03-26
How to Cite
Vlasenko, O., Furkalo, S., Khasyanova, I., & Kondratiuk, V. (2019). Repair of integrity of the common femoral artery after endovascular interventions. Ukrainian Interventional Neuroradiology and Surgery, 26(4), 81-88. https://doi.org/10.26683/2304-9359-2018-4(26)-81-88