This study evaluated the morbidity of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with concomitant common iliac artery aneurysm (CCIAA).Methods
This was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent elective EVAR from June 2006 through June 2012 at a single institution. Demographics, comorbidities, preoperative presentation, intraoperative details, and postoperative complications were tabulated. Patients with CCIAA were categorized into three groups according to the distal extent of their iliac limb: iliac limb extension into the external iliac artery with internal iliac artery coil embolization (EE); flared iliac limb ≥20 mm in diameter to the iliac bifurcation (FL); and iliac limb ≤20 mm ending proximal to the CCIAA (no-FL).Results
During this period, 627 consecutive patients underwent elective EVAR and preoperative computed tomographic angiograms were available for 523 patients to evaluate the presence of CCIAA. Of these, 211 patients (40.2%) had a CCIAA in at least one common iliac artery, with a total of 307 aneurysmal arteries. Of these 307 aneurysmal arteries, 62 (20.2%) were treated with EE, 132 (43.0%) were treated with FL, and 113 (36.8%) had a sufficient landing zone in the proximal common iliac artery to use an iliac limb ≤20 mm in diameter (no-FL). The overall reintervention rate was 12.4% of patients, with a higher reintervention rate between patients with CCIAA compared with those without (15.2% vs 10.9%; P = .039). There were no significant differences in reintervention rates between the EE, FL, and no-FL techniques (4.5% vs 4.8% vs 6.2%; P = .802) over a mean 59.8 months follow-up. The FL and EE techniques had a lower risk of distal endoleak than the no-FL technique, but the difference was not statistically significant (3.2% vs 2.3% vs 5.3% compared with 4.23% in the entire cohort).Conclusions
Patients with CCIAA had a higher reintervention rate after EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm compared with non-CCIAA patients. Of the techniques studied (EE, FL, and no-FL), there was no significant difference in reintervention rates between the three. All three techniques remain viable options for the endovascular repair of CCIAA.