Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Minimal-invasiver Zugang für EVAR

Chirurgisch oder rein interventionell?

Minimally invasive access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

Surgical or purely interventional?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Gefässchirurgie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Komplikationen kommen sowohl beim rein chirurgischen als auch rein interventionellen (perkutanen) Gefäßzugang nicht selten vor. Sie beinhalten eine nicht zu unterschätzende Morbidität und können sogar zum Tod führen. Wir beschreiben eine Technik, die die Vorteile der chirurgisch offenen mit den rein perkutanen Zugangsmethoden kombiniert: die minimale chirurgische Freilegung des Zugangsgefäßes, gefolgt von einer schnellen und sicheren Punktion mittels einer modifizierten, offenen Seldinger-Technik unter direkter taktiler und visueller Kontrolle. Diese einzigartige Kombination verschiedener Techniken erhöht die Sicherheit des Gefäßzugangs derart, dass lokale Komplikationen fast vollständig vermieden werden können. Ökonomische und sicherheitsrelevante Betrachtungen werden diskutiert, abgerundet durch einen ausgewogenen Überblick über die Vorteile der verschiedenen Techniken.

Abstract

Complications of surgical and percutaneous vascular access are well known and can lead to considerable morbidity and even mortality. This article describes a technique which combines the advantages of surgical open and percutaneous access approaches: minimal surgical exposure of the target vessel followed by fast and safe access by a modified open Seldinger technique under direct tactile and visual control. This unique combination of techniques enhances the safety of vascular access such that local complications can be almost totally avoided. Economic and safety considerations are discussed and a balanced view on the advantages of the described technique will be given.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7

Literatur

  1. Aljabri B, Obrand DI, Montreuil B et al (2001) Early vascular complications after endovascular repair of aortoiliac aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg 15(6):608–614

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cherr GS, Travis JA, Ligush J Jr et al (2001) Infection is an unusual but serious complication of a femoral artery catheterization site closure device. Ann Vasc Surg 15(5):567–570

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Eisenack M, Umscheid T, Tessarek J et al (2009) Percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: a prospective evaluation of safety, efficiency, and risk factors. J Endovasc Ther 16(6):708–713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Haulon S, Hassen Khodja R, Proudfoot CW, Samuels E (2011) A systematic literature review of the efficacy and safety of the Prostar XL device for the closure of large femoral arterial access sites in patients undergoing percutaneous endovascular aortic procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 41(2):201–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee WA, Berceli SA, Huber TS et al (2003) Morbidity with retroperitoneal procedures during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 38(3):459–463

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mayer D, Rancic Z, Wilhelm M et al (2008) Improved hybrid technique for vascular access and closure. J Endovasc Ther 15(3):322–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mayer D, Rancic Z, Wilhelm M et al (2010) Mini incision and two strings of suture: more reliable and less expensive. In: Becquemin J, Alimi YS, Gerard J (Hrsg) Controversies and updates in vascular surgery. Edizioni Minerva Medica, Torino (Italy), S 207–212

  8. Nikolsky E, Mehran R, Halkin A et al (2004) Vascular complications associated with arteriotomy closure devices in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 44(6):1200–1209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Resnic FS, Arora N, Matheny M, Reynolds MR (2007) A cost-minimization analysis of the angio-seal vascular closure device following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 99(6):766–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith ST, Timaran CH, Valentine RJ et al (2009) Percutaneous access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: can selection criteria be expanded? Ann Vasc Surg 23(5):621–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Torsello GB, Kasprzak B, Klenk E et al (2003) Endovascular suture versus cutdown for endovascular aneurysm repair: a prospective randomized pilot study. J Vasc Surg 38(1):78–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Mayer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mayer, D., Rancic, Z., Wilhelm, M. et al. Minimal-invasiver Zugang für EVAR. Gefässchirurgie 16, 168–173 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00772-011-0897-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00772-011-0897-z

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation