Research Article|Articles in Press

Additional Aortic Coverage With Off The Shelf, Multibranched Endograft Compared With Custom-Made Devices For Endovascular Repair of Pararenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Published:January 24, 2023DOI:
      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.


      Pararenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (p-AAA) require complex endovascular aortic repair or open surgical repair with suprarenal clamping. Custom made devices (CMD), including fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) or off the shelf (OTS) multibranched devices, are available treatment options. The aim of this study is to determine the additional healthy aortic coverage using an OTS multibranched endograft versus CMD for the treatment of p-AAAs.


      This was a retrospective single centre analysis of prospectively collected data. Consecutive patients with p-AAAs requiring a proximal landing zone above the coeliac artery (CA), planned and treated with CMDs (Zenith Fenestrated) between January 2017 and December 2021 were included in this study. Treatment with supracoeliac coverage using available OTS multibranched devices was simulated using available pre-operative images: T-Branch; E-nside; and TAMBE. Study endpoints included the need for additional proximal aortic coverage, and the number of the segmental arteries additionally covered from the CA for OTS devices compared with CMDs.


      Eighty three patients with p-AAAs were treated with CMDs (all FEVAR), including juxtarenal AAAs (n = 46; 56%), suprarenal AAAs (n = 20; 24%), and short neck AAAs (n = 17; 20%). In this study, treatment with 249 (3 × 83) OTS endografts was simulated. When compared with CMDs, OTS devices required a mean of 74 ± 19 mm of additional proximal healthy aortic coverage from the CA (CMD: 33 ± 19 mm vs. OTS: 108 ± 6 mm; p ≤ .001), as well as an average sacrifice of 2.5 additional segmental arteries (CMD: 1.3 ± 0.8 vs. OTS: 3.8 ± 0.9; p ≤ .001). In 94% of patients, at least one of the available multibranched endografts could have been implanted in accordance with instructions for use.


      Despite not requiring customisation time, OTS endografts for the treatment of p-AAA lead to a more extensive healthy aortic coverage, as well as an average sacrifice of 2.5 additional segmental arteries, in comparison with CMDs. When compared with OTS devices, CMDs appear to limit the extent of unnecessary aortic coverage and the theoretical subsequent risk of spinal cord ischaemia.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      Linked Article