摘要
Background Sufficient length of the proximal landing zone （PLZ） is the key for a successful thoracic endovascular aortic repair （TEVAR） of an aortic lesion. The aim of this research was to investigate the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and problems of endovascular repair for aortic dissection with insufficient PLZ.Methods The clinical data between August 2005 and February 2010 from patients with insufficient PLZ for endovascular repair of aortic dissection were retrospectively reviewed. According to the classification proposed by Ishimaru, aortic zone 0 was involved in 3 cases, zone 1 in 10 cases, and zone 2 in 11 cases. A hybrid surgical procedure of supraortic debranching and revascularization, directly coverage the orifice of left subclavian artery, or a left common carotid artery chimney graft technique were performed to obtain an adequate proximal aortic landing zone.Results There was no significant difference in risk factors and diameter of the PLZ between Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2. But the length of the PLZ was significantly different in the three groups （P 〈0.01）. There was no significant difference in technical and clinical success rate between the groups.Conclusions The procedure for extending an insufficient PLZ for endovascular repair for aortic arch pathology is feasible and relatively safe. The applicability of TEVAR in such aortic disorders may be expanded.
Background Sufficient length of the proximal landing zone （PLZ） is the key for a successful thoracic endovascular aortic repair （TEVAR） of an aortic lesion. The aim of this research was to investigate the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and problems of endovascular repair for aortic dissection with insufficient PLZ.Methods The clinical data between August 2005 and February 2010 from patients with insufficient PLZ for endovascular repair of aortic dissection were retrospectively reviewed. According to the classification proposed by Ishimaru, aortic zone 0 was involved in 3 cases, zone 1 in 10 cases, and zone 2 in 11 cases. A hybrid surgical procedure of supraortic debranching and revascularization, directly coverage the orifice of left subclavian artery, or a left common carotid artery chimney graft technique were performed to obtain an adequate proximal aortic landing zone.Results There was no significant difference in risk factors and diameter of the PLZ between Zone 0, Zone 1, and Zone 2. But the length of the PLZ was significantly different in the three groups （P 〈0.01）. There was no significant difference in technical and clinical success rate between the groups.Conclusions The procedure for extending an insufficient PLZ for endovascular repair for aortic arch pathology is feasible and relatively safe. The applicability of TEVAR in such aortic disorders may be expanded.
