Morphometric study of the iliac bifurcation and its application to iliac branch devices.
Introduction: Endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms by means of iliac branch devices allows both proper aneurysmal sealing and patency of the pelvic circulation. However, not all anatomies are suitable for this type of technology. This motivated the present study whose objective was to evalua...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Asociación Argentina de Anatomía Clínica (Argentine Association of Clinical Anatomy)
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/anatclinar/article/view/28501 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | Introduction: Endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms by means of iliac branch devices allows both proper aneurysmal sealing and patency of the pelvic circulation. However, not all anatomies are suitable for this type of technology. This motivated the present study whose objective was to evaluate the compatibility of the anatomy of the iliac vessels to the specifications of the manufacturers of these devices, in a cadaveric population. Materials and methods: 53 arterial iliac bifurcations were dissected from adult formalin-fixed cadavers. It was registered: gender, side (right or left), length of the common iliac artery (L1), hypogastric arterial length (L2), and caliber of the common iliac artery (C1), iliac bifurcation (C2), hypogastric artery (C3) and external iliac artery (C4). These results were compared with the specifications of 3 manufacturers of iliac branch devices commonly used in our region. Results: The average values obtained were: L1: 54,52 mm; L2: 40,59 mm; C1: 11,73 mm; C2: 15,34 mm; C3: 7,28 mm; C4: 8,36 mm. From the total cases studied, only 5 cases (9.43%) met the requirements of the first manufacturer, the remaining 48 cases (90,57%) did not. Eight (15,09%) cases met the criteria of the second manufacturer while 45 specimens (84,91%) did not. Eighteen cases (33,96%) met the requirements of the third manufacturer while the remaining 35 cases (66,04%) did not. Conclusions: Since not every case was suitable for iliac branch device, the surgeon must be aware of this and other type of devices for proper aortic-iliac aneurysmal distal sealing. It is crucial to determine the morphometry of each case in order to evaluate its suitability for iliac branch device use. |
|---|