Abstract
Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has become the standard therapy alongside open surgery repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and it is rapidly becoming prevalent. There has been substantial technical progress with respect to EVAR since its introduction. Technical contrivance can be used to manage even inappropriate EVAR cases, including those involving a hostile neck, deficient access route, or aneurysm rupture. However, there are some controversies over reinterventions in relation to long-term outcomes. Although a long-term result has not yet been analyzed in Japan a randomized controlled trial (RCT) held in the West reported that OSR is superior to EVAR for avoiding reinterventions and aneurysm-related death. The RCT involved the use of older devices and proceeded in a different way from the present study; therefore, different results may be obtained for Japanese EVAR outcomes. However, this Western RCT result should be considered as an important warning. Type II endoleak also must be managed in order to improve long term outcomes of EVAR. Efforts to improve both technical methodology and long-term outcomes are necessary to ensure EVAR as a minimally invasive therapy for patients with AAA. (This is a translation of Jpn J Vasc Surg 2018; 27: 405-411.).