ArticleCVIR endovascular2018
Type III B endoleak leading to aortic rupture after endovascular repair: analysis of errors in follow up and treatment.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Late Type IIIb Endoleak after Low-Profile Endograft Implantation for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Treated by Hybrid Surgery.Vascular specialist international · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this paper is to describe the case of a patient with a type III endoleak which was misdiagnosed and treated without success as a type I-II endoleak. An incorrect endoleak diagnosis lead to aortic rupture, which could be avoided with a correct diagnosis. Type III B endoleaks presents some diagnostic difficulties, in the case we describe, they were increased by late presentation and poor follow up. CASE PRESENTATION: We revised this 89 years old patient history, he underwent EVAR 11 years before, a control scan six month after surgery, showed a type I-II endoleak which was still present after first intervention. He was treated with proximal cuff positioning and embolization coils. Eight years after first intervention, a Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) showed persisting type I-II endoleak so same problem was suspected and patient was treated with another proximal cuff and right iliac extension. A Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) control, six months later, showed an increase of the aneurysm sac size of 12 mm. Two years later patient presented at emergency room at our hospital with malaise, sweating and abdominal pain. Computed Tomography (CT-scan) showed increased abdominal aortic diameter (140 × 130 mm) with rupture and hemoperitoneum. He was treated in urgent fashion with endograft removal and aortic-iliac Dacron graft reconstruction. During surgery three large tears on endograft fabric and a stent suture rupture were observed. After surgery patient was admitted in intensive care unit and died on second postoperative day due to multiorgan failure.
conclusionsType III endoleak is an uncommon complication: a correct and prompt diagnosis is mandatory for appropriate treatment After EVAR, and especially in those cases of known endoleak, a correct follow-up is mandatory and in case of diagnostic doubts correct imaging should be performed. Media contrast allergies should not be neglected and should not represent a CTA limitation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.