Send to

Choose Destination
J Vasc Surg. 2014 Jul;60(1):31-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2014.01.036. Epub 2014 Feb 20.

Comparison of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair and chimney graft techniques for pararenal aortic aneurysm.

Author information

Department of Vascular Surgery, Henri Mondor Hospital, University Paris XII, Créteil, France. Electronic address:
Department of Vascular Surgery, Henri Mondor Hospital, University Paris XII, Créteil, France.



This study compared early-term and midterm results of endovascular repair (EVAR) of juxtarenal or pararenal aortic aneurysms (PAAs) using fenestrated stent grafting (f-EVAR) and the chimney grafting (c-EVAR) technique.


Consecutive patients with PAAs who underwent f-EVAR using commercially available devices and c-EVAR in a tertiary vascular center from January 2006 to April 2013 were evaluated, including a retrospective scrutiny and update of a prospectively maintained database, calculation and comparison of perioperative mortality and morbidity, overall survival, reintervention-free rate, branch event-free rate, reconstructed vessel patency, and collection of data about intraoperative events, perioperative complications and reinterventions, and midterm sac behavior.


During the study period, 80 patients (72 men) underwent f-EVAR and 38 (34 men) underwent c-EVAR. All f-EVAR patients were operated on electively, whereas six c-EVAR patients (15.8%; P = .002) were operated on in an emergent setting. The preoperative PAA diameter was significantly smaller in the f-EVAR group than in the c-EVAR group (58.6 ± 8.6 mm vs 65.9 ± 15.3 mm; P = .003). The mean number of reconstructed vessels per patient was 2.4 ± 0.7 (median, two) for the f-EVAR group and 1.6 ± 0.7 (median, one) for the c-EVAR group (P < .0001). The f-EVAR and c-EVAR groups did not differ in 30-day mortality (6.3% vs 7.9%; P = .71) or in moderate to severe complications (27.5% vs 39.5%; P = 1.0). Median follow-up duration was 14 months, (range, 0-88 months) in the f-EVAR group and 12 months (range, 0-48 months) in the c-EVAR group. After 2 years, estimated survival rates (77.3% vs 71.8%), reintervention-free rates (71.4% vs 72.0%), reconstructed vessel event-free rates (90.5% vs 84.1%), and primary patency of reconstructed vessel rates (97.1% vs 87.6%) were not statistically different. During follow-up, sac shrinkage (≥5 mm) was observed in 43.4% of f-EVAR patients and in 30.6% of c-EVAR patients (no statistical difference).


In this limited retrospective series, short-term and midterm results of f-EVAR and c-EVAR were not statistically different. c-EVAR could be an attractive option for patients not suitable for f-EVAR.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center