Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the mid-term outcomes of different treatment strategies for the internal iliac artery (IIA) during EVAR. METHODS: This was a retrospective study. All patients undergoing EVAR, who required treatment of at least one side of IIA from January 2013 to July 2022 in a single center, were included. According to the different treatment strategies for IIA, the patients were divided into UP (unilateral preservation), BP (bilateral preservation) and BE (bilateral embolization) groups. The primary outcomes included buttock claudication, bowel ischemia and iliac-related reintervention. Then patients who underwent IIA reconstruction were divided into IPG (iliac parallel stent graft) and IBG (iliac branch stent graft) groups according to the reconstruction technique. The primary outcomes included endoleak, iliac branch occlusion and iliac-related reintervention. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients were included, including 167 in the UP group, 9 in the BP group and 61 in the BE group. The mean follow-up time was 39.0 ± 27.7, 50.0 ± 22.1 and 25.8 ± 18.9 months in UP, BP and BE groups, respectively. Thirty cases (12.7%) of buttock claudication occurred, and it was significantly higher in the BE group than the UP group (26.2% vs. 7.8%, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the other follow-up outcomes among three groups. The K-M analysis indicated that the patients in the BE group had a lower survival rate than those in the other two groups (p = 0.024). 24 patients underwent IIA reconstruction, including 8 in the IPG group and 16 in the IBG group. The endoleak in the IBG group was significantly lower than that in the IPG group (0% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.041). The iliac-related reintervention, iliac occlusion and mortality were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Overall it is beneficial for patients to preserve at least one side of IIA during EVAR as much as possible. Compared with IPG, IBG might be more applicable for IIA reconstruction.