European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery
Volume 39, Issue 6 , Pages 676-682, June 2010

Percutaneous Access for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review

St. George's Vascular Institute, London, UK

Received 27 October 2009; accepted 1 February 2010. published online 25 February 2010.

Article Outline

Abstract 

Introduction

Recent developments in aortic stent-graft technology have led to an increase in the use of wholly percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (P-EVAR). The literature was systematically reviewed to analyse the results of P-EVAR.

Methods

A systematic review of P-EVAR was performed using Ovid-MEDLINE in-process and other nonindexed citations and Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE (January 1991–July 2009). Primary outcomes reviewed were success rate and loco-regional complications. Secondary outcomes included; operative time, hospital stay, time to ambulation, blood loss and cost. Prospective randomised and controlled nonrandomised studies were included as were case series (retrospective and prospective). Case reports, letters, review articles and non-English language articles were excluded.

Results

Twenty-two papers were identified. These included randomised trials (n=1); prospective nonrandomised (n=10) and retrospective studies (n=11). P-EVAR was attempted in 1087 patients (1751 groins). Overall success rate of percutaneous arterial closure was 92% (90.1–93.9, 95% CI). Access related complication rate was 4.4% (3.5–5.3, 95% CI). Seven studies provided data on access related complications in open access cohorts (O-EVAR). In these studies, P-EVAR was associated with fewer access related complications (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.28–0.78, p=0.004). P-EVAR was associated with reduced operative time.

Conclusion

P-EVAR appears safe and effective in selected patients. Local access related complications were low. Further work is required to identify the most suitable candidates for P-EVAR.

Keywords: Aortic aneurysm, Percutaneous closure, Endovascular aneurysm, repair

 

Back to Article Outline

Introduction 

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an attractive minimally invasive technique for the repair of infra-renal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) with low operative morbidity and mortality. However, local groin wound complications as a result of exposure of the common femoral arteries are not insignificant1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 (Table 1).

Table 1. Wound complications in EVAR-open femoral access.
StudyLocal wound complication rate
Blum et al.13 (n=154)4%
Stelter et al.12 (n=201)5%
Brewster et al.11 (n=30)14%
May et al.10 (n=108)4%
Trehane et al.9 (n=49)18%
Chuter et al.8 (n=50)a26%
Moore et al.7 (n=100)5%
Cohnert et al.6 (n=37)14%
Faries et al.5 (n=368)8%
Slappy et al.4 (n=77)2%
Kibbe et al.3 (n=235)3%
Dalainas et al.2 (n=186)a20%
Birch et al.1 (n=99)16%

aIndividual complications added up to obtain the overall complication rate.

This has led some surgeons to develop alternative access techniques. Larzon described a minimal access suture technique of the cribriform fascia ‘fascial closure’, however, complication rates are significant and the technique has not been widely adopted.14, 15 Early attempts with a wholly P-EVAR approach proved disappointing.16 However, recent advances in stent-graft technology with a reduction of stent-graft delivery profile have led to a resurgence in the interest in P-EVAR.

Perclose ProstarXL (Abbott) is the main device available for percutaneous closure of large bore arterial access sheaths. Although the ProstarXL is the only device with formal approval for use in EVAR, several authors have used the Proglide system (Abbott) off-label.17, 18 The percutaneous closure device is usually deployed prior to access sheath placement in what is described in the literature as the “Preclose Technique”. Several modifications to this technique have been reported. Briefly, a small stab incision through the skin is made caudal to the anticipated arterial puncture site (common femoral artery). Some authors advocate blunt dissection to facilitate sheath passage which should be in an oblique manor. Micropuncture angiography or ultrasound is recommended to confirm correct puncture site. The initial sheath is replaced with the percutaneous closure device over a wire. The needles are deployed and sutures secured to avoid slippage and entanglement. Some centres use two Prostar devices for the main delivery system. The endovascular procedure is performed as usual. At the end of the procedure, the sheath is removed slowly (usually over a wire as a safety net) while a knot is tied with the aid of a knot pusher. The skin is closed by a single suture or adhesive tape. Local variations in the techniques exist.19, 20

This review analyses the evidence to support the use of P-EVAR over standard aortic stent-graft delivery through open arterial exposure in the groin.

Methods 

A systematic review of P-EVAR was performed from January 1991 to July 2009 using Ovid-MEDLINE in-process and other nonindexed citations and Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE. The following search strategy was used (Fig. 1); aortic aneurysm mapped to search heading (Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/or Aneurysm, Dissecting/or Aneurysm, Ruptured/or Aneurysm/or Aneurysm, Infected/or Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/or Aneurysm, False/or Aortic Aneurysm) the search result was combined with the term percutaneous. Prospective and retrospective studies and those with a control group (standard open groin exposure) were included but case reports, letters, review articles and non-English language articles were excluded. Manual review of the systematic search result was performed to retrieve relevant titles and data was extracted independently by two authors (AM, RH).

Primary outcome was success rate of percutaneous closure (defined as closure of the common femoral artery without the need of open surgical dissection). Secondary outcomes assessed were operative duration, hospital stay, time to ambulation, blood loss, cost and late loco-regional complications defined as any event that led to delayed healing, additional intervention or follow up. Study outcome heterogeneity was analysed by means of the Chi-squared test. Means were weighted and data pooled after significant study outcome heterogeneity was excluded and confidence intervals were provided if enough data was available. Data on success rate and complication rates were analysed using Fisher's exact test. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered as significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 16.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL).

Back to Article Outline

Results 

The initial systematic search retrieved (311 articles, 258 for EMBASE). Limits were applied to work in English and involving humans (252 articles). 219 Titles remained after excluding review articles and case reports. Manual review of the retrieved titles and abstracts after exclusion of duplicate and irrelevant publications resulted in a total of 22 titles. These included a randomised trial (n=1); prospective nonrandomised studies (n=8) and retrospective studies (n=13) (Fig. 1). One study (Lee, 2007)21was excluded from pooling as it appeared that a later study17 potentially shared a proportion of the patient population.

Back to Article Outline

Success rate of percutaneous closure 

The 22 retrieved papers reported on the success rate of percutaneous closure (Table 2). The overall reported success rate of percutaneous closure (SR) was 92% (90.1–93.9, 95% CI). The rate of totally percutaneous closure (where percutaneous closure was attempted and successful without open dissection in either groin) was reported in 13 studies16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32; 79% (74.9–83.1, 95% CI).

Table 2. P-EVAR success rate.
AuthorYearnStudy typeSuccess rate (%)
Heyer et al.22200914Retrospective96
Arthurs et al.19200888Retrospective95
McDonnell et al.33200817Prospective71
Jean-Baptiste et al.24200819Prospective92
Najjar et al.23200711Retrospective96
Lee et al.172008292Retrospective94
Lee et al.212007183Retrospective94
Dosluoglu et al.18200717Prospective90
Watelet et al.25200629Prospective83
Starnes et al.26200649Retrospective94
Peterson et al.2720057Retrospective100
Quinn et al.20200463Retrospective100
Morasch et al.34200447Prospective93
Borner et al.28200495Prospective89
Torsello et al.29200315RCT96
Rachel et al.36200262Prospective76
Howell et al.30200230Prospective96
Quinn31200215Prospective93
Howell et al.352001144Prospective94
Teh et al.32200144Retrospective85
Traul et al.16200017Retrospective65
Haas et al.37199912Retrospective100

Back to Article Outline

Factors potentially influencing success rate 

Patient and device selection 

One study randomised patients suitable for EVAR into standard open femoral access versus percutaneous closure.29 P-EVAR was offered to a series of consecutive patients in 13 studies.28, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 30, 33, 34, 35 Patient selection wasn't clear in 8 studies20, 22, 23, 27, 31, 32, 36, 37 (Table 3).

Table 3. Patient selection.
AuthorPatient selectionExclusion criteria
Consecutive/all comersRandomisedUnclearCalcificationOcclusive dis.Scarred GroinFemoral Aneurysm
Heyer et al.22 X
Arthurs et al.19X X
McDonnell et al.33X X
Jean-Baptiste et al.24X X X
Najjar et al.23 X
Lee et al.17X
Lee et al.21X
Dosluoglu et al.18X X
Watelet et al.25X X X
Starnes et al.26X X
Peterson et al.27 X
Quinn et al.20 X
Morasch et al.34X
Borner et al.28X X
Torsello et al.29 X X
Rachel et al.36 X
Howell et al.30X
Quinn et al.31 X
Howell et al.35X X X
Teh et al.32 XX XX
Traul et al.16X X
Haas et al.37 X

Patients with thoracic aortic pathology were included in eight studies. Seven studies excluded heavy femoral artery calcification.16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 32, 35 The next most common exclusion criterion was scarred groins in five studies.24, 25, 32, 33, 35 Patients with femoral artery aneurysms were excluded in three studies26, 29, 32 (Table 3).

There was no statistically significant difference in the percutaneous closure success rate in the studies that considered all comers17, 19, 29, 30, 34 and the studies that excluded patients with femoral artery calcification and groin scarring.24, 25, 26, 32, 35 (94%, 92.3–95.7, 95% CI versus 91%, 88.2–93.8, 95% CI, p>0.5)

The majority of studies (n=19) used the ProstarXL. Three studies from two groups dealt with Proglide. The success rate in the Proglide group, 93.7% (91.5–95.9, 95% CI) was better than in the Prostar group 90% (88.4–91.6, 95% CI) P=0.02. The complication rates in the Proglide group were 1.9% (1.5–4.3%, 95% CI) versus 4.8% (3.3–6/3%, 95% CI) for the Prostar group P=0.03.

Sheath size 

Details on percutaneous closure success rate according to sheath size were available in 10 studies (Table 4). There was a tendency of success rate to decrease with increasing sheath size. Three studies reported a statistically significant difference in success rate with increasing sheath size.21, 26, 36 Sheath size was considered a reason for failure in 6 studies16, 18, 25, 26, 28, 36 and a cause of complications in three studies.21, 25, 29

Table 4. Success rate and sheath size.
AuthorSheath sizeSuccess rate
Arthurs et al.19<20F97%
>20F80%
Lee et al.17<16F99%
>16F93%
Lee et al.21a12-6F99%
18-24F91% p<0.01
Doslouglu et al.1812-16F93%
18-22F88%
Watelet et al.2522-24F79%
16F89%
Starnes et al.26a≤18F99%
≥20F78% p<0.05
Borner et al.2814F93%
16F97%
18F100%
20F80%
Rachel et al.36a16F85%
22F64% p<0.05
Howell et al.3022 &16 F93%
Traul et al.1616F73%
>22F57%

aDifference reported as significant.

Scarred groins 

Previous groin surgery was a reason for P-EVAR exclusion in four studies.24, 25, 32, 33

Despite attempting to exclude patients with scarred groins, failure was attributed to patients with scarred groins in one study.32 Another study involving a significant proportion of patients with previous catheterisation and scarring found no correlation with failure.36

Obesity 

Obesity was associated with P-EVAR failure in five studies.21, 26, 29, 32, 35 However, in only one was this relationship statistically significant.35 One study found no correlation of failure with obesity.36

Access related complication rate 

The overall access related complication in reviewed studies of P-EVAR was 4.4% (3.5–5.3, 95% CI). Seven papers compared data on access related complications with a control cohort of patients undergoing standard open groin arterial exposure.21, 23, 24, 29, 33, 34, 36 Study heterogeneity was not significant and pooled data suggested P-EVAR was associated with less access related complications, relative risk 0.47 (0.28–0.78, 95% CI), p=0.004.

Three studies associated an increase in access related complication rate in P-EVAR with sheath size.21, 26, 29 One showed a significant association of complications with large sheath size and obesity.26

Hospital stay 

Hospital stay was reported in seven studies.18, 24, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34 Mean hospital stay was 2.07 days. The difference in hospital stay between P-EVAR and EVAR was assessed in three studies. In all three studies, hospital stay was shorter in patients undergoing P-EVAR. P-EVAR was associated with a shorter hospital stay (2.7 vs. 3.5 days weighted mean).24, 33, 34 One study reported a significant difference.24

Operative time 

Eight studies reviewed operative time.16, 21, 24, 28, 29, 30, 34, 36 P-EVAR was associated with less operative time compared to open groin exposure (106 vs. 145min, weighted mean). Operative time was reported as significantly shorter in five out of the eight studies.16, 29, 30, 34, 36 Compared to EVAR, a significant proportion of P-EVAR procedures was performed under local anaesthesia as reported in two studies.24, 34

Blood loss 

One study reported significantly less blood loss in P-EVAR compared to O-EVAR.30 Although blood loss in P-EVAR and O-EVAR was similar, failed P-EVAR resulted in more blood loss.28, 34 The randomised controlled study reported similar blood loss in all three groups (P-EVAR, O-EVAR and failed P-EVAR).29

Time to ambulation and cost 

Ambulation time was reported in three studies. One study reported ambulation in 81% of patients 4–6h following P-EVAR.20 Ambulation time was shorter for P-EVAR in comparison with O-EVAR.29, 34

One study reported less cost associated with P-EVAR, but this was statistically non significant.24 P-EVAR average procedure cost was €99 more than O-EVAR group in the randomised study.7 Another study reported an overall increase in procedural cost despite a shorter operative time due to the cost of closure devices (US $295 per closure device).21 Neither study explored the effect of reduced hospital stay on overall cost.

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

The result of this systematic review of the evidence on percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair was based on the available published studies. Mostly retrospective or prospective nonrandomised studies, with only one randomised controlled trial. This should be considered when interpreting results. Interestingly, the review results are close in many respects to this single centre RCT.29 Issues of selection bias should be considered, however it was possible to perform P-EVAR with good results in randomised and non selective patients (calcified arteries, scarred groins and obesity).

In this systematic review, P-EVAR was shown to be both, a feasible and safe alternative to open femoral access. The overall success rate was high even in an unselected population.29 Several studies included ruptured aneurysms, which may be a particularly attractive indication due to the feasibility to perform under local anaesthesia in unstable patients.23, 28

Vessel calcification, obesity and scarred groins were considered a contributory factor in failure in several studies. This should not be a deterrent to P-EVAR in this group of patients as it is these patients who would benefit the most from a wholly percutaneous approach. Keeping this in mind, data suggests that surgeons need to proceed with caution in performing P-EVAR in obese patients with small calcified vessels. Despite this, there is a need to identify more clearly patients who are at risk of developing complications.

Other outcomes measured were also in favour of P-EVAR. The overall access related complication rate in the all the included titles was low and comparable to the best results in O-EVAR series (Table 1). The incidence of access related complication rate was significantly higher in O-EVAR in the cohort that reported complications in both P-EVAR and O-EVAR groups in the same study.21, 23, 24, 29, 33, 34, 36

The two widely available percutaneous closure devices are the Perclose ProstarXL and the Perclose Proglide (Abbott). Three studies from two research groups used the Proglide17, 18, 21 with the remaining studies reporting on the ProstarXL. Authors experienced with the Proglide report ease of manipulation and knot tying attributed to device design and the use of monofilament sutures in contrast to the braided sutures in the ProsrarXL.17, 18 In coronary interventions the braided sutures have been more prone to infection.38 The overall rate of infection remains low in P-EVAR. Difficulties in suture manipulation were initially reported as a reason for failure and conversion were more commonly seen with the Prostar device.16, 18, 25 The review results indicate a higher complication rate using the ProstarXL. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because of the off-label use in two centres with an enthusiasm for this device which should be used with caution as it still lacks formal approval for use in EVAR. The fact that ProstarXL was the first device developed and used earlier in the learning curve for P-EVAR may also account for the difference in results.

Several authors reported on device malfunction and faulty puncture as a cause of failure and complications particularly early in the experience (learning curve).24, 25 High puncture site is usually associated with haemorrhage on mobilisation due to incorporating fibres of the inguinal ligament into the suture, and a low puncture can lead to ischaemia from vessel damage and occlusion. Preprocedural angiography through micropuncture sets can be used to confirm correct puncture site.26 More recently, intraoperative ultrasound guided puncture was found to significantly improve the success rate and reduce P-EVAR access related complications19 and would be recommended as routine in all cases. Adoption of such adjuncts should be routine practice but more so in the initial learning curve where failures and complications were reported by several authors.16, 35 Femoral compression devices have been used following percutaneous closure, but evidence is lacking to whether this offers added benifit.28 What this may do is cloud the issue of which modality is being evaluated, the percutaneous device or the use of compression devices.

The additional cost of percutaneous closure devices and reimbursement issues are still considered obstacles preventing these devices from widespread use. However, there is a trend in reduction of operative time and hospital stay with the use of percutaneous closure devices. No further statistical analysis could be performed here from the available data but several articles reported individually a significant difference. It appears that this will shift the cost effectiveness ratio to P-EVAR particularly when a larger number of patients are treated with this modality.

In conclusion, P-EVAR appears safe and effective in selected patients. Local access related complications were comparable to the best O-EVAR series. More work is required to identify the most suitable candidates. A randomised controlled trial including data on overall cost effectiveness as well as outcome data is needed now to define the role of P-EVAR in the contemporary management of AAA.

Back to Article Outline

Funding 

Unfunded.

Back to Article Outline

Conflict of Interest 

None.

Back to Article Outline

Ethical approval 

N/A.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Birch SE, Borchard KL, Hewitt PM, Stary D, Scott AR. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a 7 year experience at the Launceston General Hospital. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75(5):302–307
  2. Dalainas I, Nano G, Casana R, Tealdi Dg D. Mid-term results after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a four-year experience. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;27(3):319–323
  3. Kibbe MR, Matsumura JS. The gore excluder US multi-center trial: analysis of adverse events at 2 years. Semin Vasc Surg. 2003;16(2):144–150
  4. Slappy AL, Hakaim AG, Oldenburg WA, Paz-Fumagalli R, McKinney JM. Femoral incision morbidity following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2003;37(2):105–109
  5. Faries PL, Brener BJ, Connelly TL, Katzen BT, Briggs VL, Burks JA, et al. A multicenter experience with the Talent endovascular graft for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(6):1123–1128
  6. Cohnert TU, Oelert F, Wahlers T, Gohrbandt B, Chavan A, Farber A, et al. Matched-pair analysis of conventional versus endoluminal AAA treatment outcomes during the initial phase of an aortic endografting program. J Endovasc Ther. 2000;7(2):94–100
  7. Moore WS, Kashyap VS, Vescera CL, Quinones-Baldrich WJ. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: a 6-year comparison of endovascular versus transabdominal repair. Ann Surg. 1999;230(3):298–306discussion 306–298
  8. Chuter TA, Gordon RL, Reilly LM, Kerlan RK, Sawhney R, Jean-Claude J, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysm in high-risk patients: short- to intermediate-term results of endovascular repair. Radiology. 1999;210(2):361–365
  9. Treharne GD, Thompson MM, Whiteley MS, Bell PR. Physiological comparison of open and endovascular aneurysm repair. Br J Surg. 1999;86(6):760–764
  10. May J, White GH, Yu W, Ly CN, Waugh R, Stephen MS, et al. Concurrent comparison of endoluminal versus open repair in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: analysis of 303 patients by life table method. J Vasc Surg. 1998;27(2):213–220discussion 220–211
  11. Brewster DC, Geller SC, Kaufman JA, Cambria RP, Gertler JP, LaMuraglia GM, et al. Initial experience with endovascular aneurysm repair: comparison of early results with outcome of conventional open repair. J Vasc Surg. 1998;27(6):992–1003discussion 1004–1005
  12. Stelter W, Umscheid T, Ziegler P. Three-year experience with modular stent-graft devices for endovascular AAA treatment. J Endovasc Surg. 1997;4(4):362–369
  13. Blum U, Voshage G, Lammer J, Beyersdorf F, Tollner D, Kretschmer G, et al. Endoluminal stent-grafts for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(1):13–20
  14. Larzon T, Geijer H, Gruber G, Popek R, Norgren L. Fascia suturing of large access sites after endovascular treatment of aortic aneurysms and dissections. J Endovasc Ther. 2006;13(2):152–157
  15. Diethrich EB. What do we need to know to achieve durable endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair?. Tex Heart Inst J. 1997;24(3):179–184
  16. Traul DK, Clair DG, Gray B, O'Hara PJ, Ouriel K. Percutaneous endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: a feasibility study. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32(4):770–776
  17. Lee WA, Brown MP, Nelson PR, Huber TS, Seeger JM. Midterm outcomes of femoral arteries after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair using the Preclose technique. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47(5):919–923
  18. Dosluoglu HH, Cherr GS, Harris LM, Dryjski ML. Total percutaneous endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using Perclose ProGlide closure devices. J Endovasc Ther. 2007;14(2):184–188
  19. Arthurs ZM, Starnes BW, Sohn VY, Singh N, Andersen CA. Ultrasound-guided access improves rate of access-related complications for totally percutaneous aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2008;22(6):736–741
  20. Quinn SF, Kim J. Percutaneous femoral closure following stent-graft placement: use of the Perclose device. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004;27(3):231–236
  21. Lee WA, Brown MP, Nelson PR, Huber TS. Total percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (“Preclose” technique). J Vasc Surg. 2007;45(6):1095–1101
  22. Heyer KS, Resnick SA, Matsumura JS, Amaranto D, Eskandari MK. Percutaneous Zenith endografting for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23(2):167–171
  23. Najjar SF, Mueller KH, Ujiki MB, Morasch MD, Matsumura JS, Eskandari MK. Percutaneous endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Arch Surg. 2007;142(11):1049–1052
  24. Jean-Baptiste E, Hassen-Khodja R, Haudebourg P, Bouillanne PJ, Declemy S, Batt M. Percutaneous closure devices for endovascular repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms: a prospective, non-randomized comparative study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;35(4):422–428
  25. Watelet J, Gallot JC, Thomas P, Douvrin F, Plissonnier D. Percutaneous repair of aortic aneurysms: a prospective study of suture-mediated closure devices. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;32(3):261–265
  26. Starnes BW, Andersen CA, Ronsivalle JA, Stockmaster NR, Mullenix PS, Statler JD. Totally percutaneous aortic aneurysm repair: experience and prudence. J Vasc Surg. 2006;43(2):270–276
  27. Peterson BG, Matsumura JS, Morasch MD, West MA, Eskandari MK. Percutaneous endovascular repair of blunt thoracic aortic transection. J Trauma. 2005;59(5):1062–1065
  28. Borner G, Ivancev K, Sonesson B, Lindblad B, Griffin D, Malina M. Percutaneous AAA repair: is it safe?. J Endovasc Ther. 2004;11(6):621–626
  29. Torsello GB, Kasprzak B, Klenk E, Tessarek J, Osada N, Torsello GF. Endovascular suture versus cutdown for endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective randomized pilot study. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38(1):78–82
  30. Howell M, Doughtery K, Strickman N, Krajcer Z. Percutaneous repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms using the AneuRx stent graft and the percutaneous vascular surgery device. [see comment] Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2002;55(3):281–287
  31. Quinn SF, Duke DJ, Baldwin SS, Bascom TH, Ruff SJ, Swangard RJ, et al. Percutaneous placement of a low-profile stent-graft device for aortic dissections. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2002;13(8):791–798
  32. Teh LG, Sieunarine K, van Schie G, Goodman MA, Lawrence-Brown M, Prendergast FJ, et al. Use of the percutaneous vascular surgery device for closure of femoral access sites during endovascular aneurysm repair: lessons from our experience. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2001;22(5):418–423
  33. McDonnell CO, Forlee MV, Dowdall JF, Colgan MP, Madhavan P, Shanik GD, et al. Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair leads to a reduction in wound complications. Ir J Med Sci. 2008;177(1):49–52
  34. Morasch MD, Kibbe MR, Evans ME, Meadows WS, Eskandari MK, Matsumura JS, et al. Percutaneous repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2004;40(1):12–16
  35. Howell M, Villareal R, Krajcer Z. Percutaneous access and closure of femoral artery access sites associated with endoluminal repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2001;8(1):68–74
  36. Rachel ES, Bergamini TM, Kinney EV, Jung MT, Kaebnick HW, Mitchell RA. Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2002;16(1):43–49
  37. Haas PC, Krajcer Z, Diethrich EB. Closure of large percutaneous access sites using the Prostar XL Percutaneous Vascular Surgery device. J Endovasc Surg. 1999;6(2):168–170
  38. Johanning JM, Franklin DP, Elmore JR, Han DC. Femoral artery infections associated with percutaneous arterial closure devices. J Vasc Surg. 2001;34(6):983–985

PII: S1078-5884(10)00065-1

doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.02.001

European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery
Volume 39, Issue 6 , Pages 676-682, June 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution