TY - JOUR

T1 - Cutdown Technique is Superior to Fascial Closure for Femoral Artery Access after Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair

AU - Fredholm, Kristian

AU - Eiberg, Jonas P.

AU - Lönn, Lars

AU - Vogt, Katja C.

AU - Sillesen, Henrik H.

AU - Bredahl, Kim K.

PY - 2019/9

Y1 - 2019/9

N2 - Objectives: Arterial access closure after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be achieved using three different approaches: percutaneous closure devices, surgical exposure and direct suture (“cutdown”), and the less invasive fascial closure technique. The aim of this study was to report on the intra-operative, in hospital, and three month outcome of fascial closure and cutdown, and to determine risk factors for failure. Methods: The primary outcome was assessed in 439 groins in 225 elective EVAR patients recruited consecutively and prospectively from February 1, 2011 to August 31, 2014. During the study period, fascial closure and cutdown were first and second line closing techniques. Compared with fascial closure, procedures completed with cutdown had lower BMI, thinner subcutaneous tissue of the groin and more complex femoral anatomy. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and duplex ultrasound (DUS) of the groin were performed pre-operatively and three months after EVAR. Retrospective review of medical records and CTA were used to determine intra-operative and in hospital outcome, and risk factors for failure. Results: In total, 64%, 33%, and 3% were completed with fascial closure, cutdown, and closure device, respectively. Intra-operative, in hospital, and three month technical success rates of fascial closure vs. cutdown were 91% (283/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins), 89% (277/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins), and 89% (275/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins) (p <.001). Wound complications within three months were infrequent for both methods. No risk factor was significantly associated with failure after fascial closure. Conclusion: This study shows that cutdown is superior to fascial closure for femoral artery access after elective EVAR. In acute EVAR, however, fascial closure is still considered to be a good and fast method, and it has been kept in the present authors’ armamentarium for this indication.

AB - Objectives: Arterial access closure after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be achieved using three different approaches: percutaneous closure devices, surgical exposure and direct suture (“cutdown”), and the less invasive fascial closure technique. The aim of this study was to report on the intra-operative, in hospital, and three month outcome of fascial closure and cutdown, and to determine risk factors for failure. Methods: The primary outcome was assessed in 439 groins in 225 elective EVAR patients recruited consecutively and prospectively from February 1, 2011 to August 31, 2014. During the study period, fascial closure and cutdown were first and second line closing techniques. Compared with fascial closure, procedures completed with cutdown had lower BMI, thinner subcutaneous tissue of the groin and more complex femoral anatomy. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and duplex ultrasound (DUS) of the groin were performed pre-operatively and three months after EVAR. Retrospective review of medical records and CTA were used to determine intra-operative and in hospital outcome, and risk factors for failure. Results: In total, 64%, 33%, and 3% were completed with fascial closure, cutdown, and closure device, respectively. Intra-operative, in hospital, and three month technical success rates of fascial closure vs. cutdown were 91% (283/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins), 89% (277/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins), and 89% (275/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins) (p <.001). Wound complications within three months were infrequent for both methods. No risk factor was significantly associated with failure after fascial closure. Conclusion: This study shows that cutdown is superior to fascial closure for femoral artery access after elective EVAR. In acute EVAR, however, fascial closure is still considered to be a good and fast method, and it has been kept in the present authors’ armamentarium for this indication.

KW - Access complications

KW - Cutdown

KW - EVAR

KW - EVAR-surveillance

KW - Fascial closure

KW - Fascial suture

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068363591&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.03.027

DO - 10.1016/j.ejvs.2019.03.027

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31296459

AN - SCOPUS:85068363591

VL - 58

SP - 350

EP - 356

JO - European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

JF - European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

SN - 1078-5884

IS - 3

ER -