Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) presenting with hostile neck anatomy can represent a challenge in surgical decision-making. We hypothesized that, patients who require reinterventions have higher rates of compromised neck anatomy at initial presentation and may indicate a need for altered surveillance paradigm. METHODS: Patients presenting with ruptured AAA to a single tertiary care institution from 2014 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Those treated with infrarenal EVAR, with no prior aortic surgeries, and with available pre-operative computed tomography (CT) scans were included. Demographics, timing and type of reintervention, follow-up, and survival were collected. CT scans were assessed for hostile neck anatomy via measurements of diameter, length, angle, taper, bulge, calcification, and thrombus. Demographics, comorbidities, and neck anatomy of those with and without reintervention were compared using Fischer's Exact and Student's T-test. Survival was analyzed via Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were available for analysis, 37 of which met inclusion criteria. Intraoperative death occurred in 3 patients (8.1%) and 1 patient (2.7%) was intraoperatively converted to an open repair. Thirty-day and 1-year survival were 97% and 91%, respectively. The reintervention rate was 30% (n = 10), occurring at a median of 200 days (18-2053 days) after the index operation. All patients requiring reintervention met hostile neck criteria (p = .002) and had a statistically higher number of hostile neck criteria (1.80 vs 0.87, p = .03). Thirty percent (n = 3) of patients that received a reintervention had neck diameter greater than 3 cm, compared to zero patients in the non-reintervention group (p = .022). Proximal reinterventions (n = 5) had statistically higher neck diameters and neck angle compared to the non-reintervention group. CONCLUSION: Infrarenal rEVAR is effective at preventing acute mortality despite specific anatomic considerations that may contribute to the higher reintervention rates, and therefore those parameters ought to be considered when following patients in the post-intervention period.