Open Iliac Conduits Enabling the New Era of Endovascular Aortic Repair in Hostile Iliofemoral Anatomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

<i>Background and Objectives</i>: Hostile iliofemoral anatomy (HIA) challenges large-bore access in thoracic, branched, or fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (t/b/fEVAR). Retroperitoneal open iliac conduit (ROIC) enables safe delivery, but data in complex t/b/fEVAR are scarce. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: This retrospective single-center cohort study (2017-2025) of 80 t/b/fEVAR patients followed STROBE guidelines. Eight (10%) required elective ROIC for HIA (small iliac diameter < 7 mm or occlusive disease). Outcomes were compared to 23 no-conduit complex endovascular aortic repair cases. <i>Results</i>: ROIC patients [50% female, 87.5% smokers] had higher PAD [62.5% vs. 17.4%, <i>p</i>-value = 0.015]. All ROICs were elective [vs. 69.5% no-conduit, <i>p</i>-value = 0.076]; indications: Type V TAAA [50%], synchronous aneurysms (25%), Type II TAAA [12.5%] and arch aneurysm [12.5%]. Median operative time [365 vs. 200 min, <i>p</i>-value = 0.002], blood loss [1190 vs. 600 cc, <i>p</i>-value < 0.001], and contrast [420 vs. 300 cc, <i>p</i>-value = 0.004] were higher. Technical success was 100% [8/8] vs. 86.9% [20/23] (<i>p</i>-value = 0.28), and clinical success was 87.5% vs. 78.2% (<i>p</i>-value = 0.569). Median ICU stay [3 d vs. 2 d, <i>p</i>-value = 0.817] and hospital stay [12 d vs. 9 d, <i>p</i>-value = 0.404] were prolonged, albeit without statistically significant differences. In-hospital mortality was similar (12.5% vs. 17.4%, <i>p</i>-value = 0.746) between groups. One ROIC patient had intraoperative cardiac arrest [sheath dislodgement]; another required a covered stent for anastomotic rupture. At 12-month follow-up, one Type III endoleak required relining. <i>Conclusions</i>: Planned retroperitoneal open iliac conduits achieved 100% technical success in patients with hostile iliofemoral anatomy, without ischemic complications, despite longer operative times and higher blood loss. ROIC remains a safe and indispensable technique that extends complex endovascular aortic repair to otherwise ineligible patients.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicina
Published
2025-12-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina62010017
Primary Topic
Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Open Iliac Conduits Enabling the New Era of Endovascular Aortic Repair in Hostile Iliofemoral Anatomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Nikolaos Kontopodis, Christos V. Ioannou, Ioannis Kakisis, Michalis Pesmatzoglou et al.
Medicina
Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
article

Open Iliac Conduits Enabling the New Era of Endovascular Aortic Repair in Hostile Iliofemoral Anatomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Nikolaos Kontopodis, Christos V. Ioannou, Ioannis Kakisis, Michalis Pesmatzoglou, Konstantinos Litinas
article en

Abstract

<i>Background and Objectives</i>: Hostile iliofemoral anatomy (HIA) challenges large-bore access in thoracic, branched, or fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (t/b/fEVAR). Retroperitoneal open iliac conduit (ROIC) enables safe delivery, but data in complex t/b/fEVAR are scarce. <i>Materials and Methods</i>: This retrospective single-center cohort study (2017-2025) of 80 t/b/fEVAR patients followed STROBE guidelines. Eight (10%) required elective ROIC for HIA (small iliac diameter < 7 mm or occlusive disease). Outcomes were compared to 23 no-conduit complex endovascular aortic repair cases. <i>Results</i>: ROIC patients [50% female, 87.5% smokers] had higher PAD [62.5% vs. 17.4%, <i>p</i>-value = 0.015]. All ROICs were elective [vs. 69.5% no-conduit, <i>p</i>-value = 0.076]; indications: Type V TAAA [50%], synchronous aneurysms (25%), Type II TAAA [12.5%] and arch aneurysm [12.5%]. Median operative time [365 vs. 200 min, <i>p</i>-value = 0.002], blood loss [1190 vs. 600 cc, <i>p</i>-value < 0.001], and contrast [420 vs. 300 cc, <i>p</i>-value = 0.004] were higher. Technical success was 100% [8/8] vs. 86.9% [20/23] (<i>p</i>-value = 0.28), and clinical success was 87.5% vs. 78.2% (<i>p</i>-value = 0.569). Median ICU stay [3 d vs. 2 d, <i>p</i>-value = 0.817] and hospital stay [12 d vs. 9 d, <i>p</i>-value = 0.404] were prolonged, albeit without statistically significant differences. In-hospital mortality was similar (12.5% vs. 17.4%, <i>p</i>-value = 0.746) between groups. One ROIC patient had intraoperative cardiac arrest [sheath dislodgement]; another required a covered stent for anastomotic rupture. At 12-month follow-up, one Type III endoleak required relining. <i>Conclusions</i>: Planned retroperitoneal open iliac conduits achieved 100% technical success in patients with hostile iliofemoral anatomy, without ischemic complications, despite longer operative times and higher blood loss. ROIC remains a safe and indispensable technique that extends complex endovascular aortic repair to otherwise ineligible patients.

MedicinaVol. 62(1)
University of Crete (GR), University General Hospital Attikon (GR)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Aortic aneurysm repair treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.