Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 31.
Published in final edited form as: J Vasc Surg. 2014 Aug 28;61(2):309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.07.097

Table IV.

Comparison of endoleak rates and description of reintervention after fenestrated EVAR with and without intraoperative 3D fusion CT

Endoleak Typea No CT (N = 32)
No. (%)		 3D CT (N =25)
No. (%)		 P-valueb
No endoleak 27 (84%) 19 (76%)
  Type 1a/b 0 0
  Type 2 3 (9%) 4 (16%)
  Type 3 2 (6%) 1 (4%)
  Type 4 0 0
  Indeterminate 0 1 (4%) .4
Description of Reinterventions
No intraoperative CT patients (N = 5)

  • Patient 1 Right renal stent extension/relining for stenosis @ 11.5 months

  • Patient 2 Jejunal arcade pseudoaneurysm embolization @ 1.9 months

  • Patient 3 Attempted (failed) Left renal bridging stent-graft for Type 3 endoleak @ 0.6 months

  • Patient 4 Left renal stent-graft and SMA→IMA embolization for Type 3 and 2 endoleak @ 3.4 months

  • Patient 5 Celiac and SMA stent-grafts for Type 3 endoleak @ 1.3 months

Intraoperative 3D CT patients (N = 4)

  • Patient 1 SMA stent for “shuttering” of native SMA by scallop @ 0.7 months

  • Patient 2 Mesenteric embolization for Left colon hemorrhage @ 1.3 months

  • Patient 3 Celiac stent-graft for Type 3 endoleak @ 1.3 months

  • Patient 4 Left renal artery branch vessel embolization and hematoma evacuation @ 0.1 months
a

Data based on patients with available contrasted postoperative CT scans;

b

P-value determined with Fischer’s exact test.