Surgical versus endovascular repair by iliac branch device of XXXX involving the iliac bifurcation.

@entity1 @entity63 @entity30606 @entity439 @entity432
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate early and late results of open (OR) and @entity439 repair by iliac side branch device (EVRISB) for @entity439 involving the iliac bifurcation ( @entity30606 ). METHODS: Between January 2004 and March 2010, 118 @entity1 were diagnosed with AIBs and underwent OR or EVRISB at two European vascular centers. Particularly, 64 (54.2%) @entity1 were treated by EVRISB and 54 (45.8%) by OR. In one center, 24 consecutive @entity1 were treated by surgery because this was the standard therapeutic approach until January 2005. For the rest of the study period until March 2010, 64 consecutive @entity1 with @entity30606 suitable for EVRISB underwent placement of branched devices. In the other center, 30 consecutive @entity1 with AIBs were treated by OR because advanced endovascular imaging was not available during the study period. RESULTS: No significant differences in demographics, anatomical characteristics, or comorbidities of the @entity1 were recorded between the two groups. Early (30-day) mortality was 0% for EVRISB versus 5.5% for the OR group (P < .001). Major morbidity occurred in 4.6% versus 9.3% of the @entity1 subgroups, respectively (P < .001). Buttock claudication and @entity63 were recorded in 5.9% and 2% of OR @entity1 compared with 3.1% and 0% of EVRISB cases (P > .05). Primary patency rates were 98.4% for EVRISB and 100% for OR @entity1 . Primary and secondary endoleak rates of the EVRISB group were 12.5% and 6.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair by iliac branch device of @entity439 involving the iliac bifurcation can be accomplished with very low morbidity and mortality rates. Especially for young active @entity1 or in cases of @entity432 , the preservation of hypogastric artery seems to be a strong argument for use of EVRISB as a preferable therapy option.
