TABLE 36.
Procedure | Potential Indications* | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|---|
Extra-anatomic reconstruction | Infrarenal location with gross purulence, psoas or retroperitoneal abscess, vertebral osteomyelitis, inadequate response to antibiotic therapy, selected aortoenteric fistulae | Avoids placement of foreign body in infected area | Not technically feasible for thoracic, suprarenal, or visceral location or for emergency use Long operating time Long-term patency rates low Stump blowout Limb ischemia, amputation Reinfection rate higher than for in situ reconstruction Ischemic colitis |
In situ reconstruction | Thoracic, suprarenal, infrarenal, or visceral location Selected aortoenteric fistulae |
More versatile than extra-anatomic: fewer long-term complications, higher patency rates, lower recurrent infection rate, shorter operating time Polyester grafts† available for emergency surgery |
Theoretical risk of infection because of interposition of foreign material in infected site |
Endovascular device repair | Bridge procedure‡: hemodynamic instability, uncontrolled bleeding, rupture or impending rupture, selected patients with aortocentric fistulae, patients who are not fit for open surgery | Emergency stabilization Low early morbidity, mortality Less invasive No cross-clamping of aorta: spinal cord injury, reperfusion injury |
Persistent infections and device infections Higher long-term morbidity, mortality with device retention Requires device explanation, reconstruction |
Potential indication; must be individualized for each patient.
Polyester grafts, rifampin-soaked or silver-coated; less experience reported with cryopreserved arterial allografts or venous autografts.
Bridge procedure, used to stabilize patients until device explanation and arterial reconstruction.
Adapted from Wilson et al5 with permission of the American Heart Association, Inc. Copyright 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.