• D A Sidloff, P W Stather, E Choke, M J Bown, and R D Sayers.
• Vascular Surgery Group, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK. ds343@le.ac.uk
• Br J Surg. 2013 Sep 1; 100 (10): 126212701262-70.

BackgroundThe aim was to assess the risk of rupture, and determine the benefits of intervention for the treatment of type II endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).MethodsThis systematic review was done according to PRISMA guidelines. Outcome data included incidence, spontaneous resolution, sac expansion, interventions, clinical success, and complications including conversion to open repair, and rupture.ResultsThirty-two non-randomized retrospective studies were included, totalling 21 744 patients who underwent EVAR. There were 1515 type II endoleaks and 393 interventions. Type II endoleak was seen in 10·2 per cent of patients after EVAR; 35·4 per cent resolved spontaneously. Fourteen patients (0·9 per cent) with isolated type II endoleak had ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm; six of these did not have known aneurysm sac expansion. Of 393 interventions for type II endoleak, 28·5 per cent were unsuccessful. Translumbar embolization had a higher clinical success rate than transarterial embolization (81 versus 62·5 per cent respectively; P = 0·024) and fewer recurrent endoleaks were reported (19 versus 35·8 per cent; P = 0·036). Transarterial embolization also had a higher rate of complications (9·2 per cent versus none; P = 0·043).ConclusionAortic aneurysm rupture after EVAR secondary to an isolated type II endoleak is rare (less than 1 per cent), but over a third occur in the absence of sac expansion. Translumbar embolization had a higher success rate with a lower risk of complications.© 2013 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

19 keywords...

hide…