Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Conical Neck Anatomy

Purpose: Cone shape neck is regarded as non-instruction for use (IFU) in most commercial stent graft. However, in real practice, liberal application of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for outside of IFU happens. We investigate non-adherence to conical neck anatomy in terms of early aneurysmal exclusion results. Materials and Methods: From January 2010 to December 2013, 105 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) underwent EVAR in Daegu Catholic University Medical Center. Among them, 38 patients (36.2%) had AAA with conical neck. We investigated the clinical characteristics of patients and the details of conical neck. We also analyzed the clinical results, such as endoleak, migration, procedure failure, perioperative mortality, and admission duration between conical neck and non-conical neck. Results: The maximum diameter of AAA was larger (60.95 mm vs. 52.68 mm, P=0.016) and the infrarenal neck length was shorter (25.07 mm vs. 38.13 mm, P=0.000) in conical neck group. During the procedure, type Ia endoleak occurred more in conical neck group (23.7% vs. 6.0%, P=0.013) and it could be successfully solved with additional adjunctive treatments, such as balloon or Palmaz stent. Although there was no statistical significance, mortality was higher and admission duration was longer in the conical neck (15.8% vs. 6.0%, 16.62±13.12 days vs. 13.03±13.13 days). Mean follow-up duration was 319.2±366.45 days. Successful aneurysmal exclusion was achieved. Conclusion: The presence of conical neck may not be a contraindication for EVAR. However, conical neck requires careful observation for additional adjunctive treatments because it increases the risk of type Ia endoleak.