ArticleCVIR endovascular2026
Periaortic inflammation after endoleak repair: a risk to watch.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the occurrence of periaortic inflammation, including abscess formation, as a complication following endoleak repair after endovascular aortic repair. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-center study analyzed 88 EVAR revisions for endoleak treatment performed in 59 patients between 2015 and 2025. Patients underwent one to three revision procedures. Endoleaks were classified by type, and treatment was performed via transarterial access or direct sac puncture with a posterior/translumbar access route. Embolization materials for type II endoleaks included n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate, ethylene vinyl alcohol, and coils, while stent-graft extensions and transmural fixation were used for type I and III endoleaks.
resultsOf the 59 patients, 38 (64.4%) underwent one revision, 13 (22.0%) two revisions, and 8 (13.6%) three revisions. Treated endoleaks included type I (19.3%), type II (77.3%), type III (2.3%), and combined type II/III (1.1%). A total of 73 procedures (83.0%) were performed via transarterial access and 15 (17.0%) via direct sac puncture. Follow-up CT identified 6 cases of periaortic inflammation after type II endoleak repair, presenting with soft tissue mantle, fat stranding, or abscess formation. Symptom onset ranged from 33 to 108 days after the most recent intervention. No significant association was found between periaortic inflammation and access route or embolic material.
conclusionPeriaortic inflammation and abscess formation are possible severe complications after endoleak repair following endovascular aortic repair. To date, these inflammatory changes have not been described systematically in the literature and warrant further investigation.
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.