Endovascular versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm with concomitant malignancy

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Concomitant Cancer: A Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

Abdominal aortic aneurysmal (AAA) repair in patients with concomitant cancer is controversial due to increased comorbidity and reduced life expectancy in this specific patient group. This literature review aims to investigate the evidence supporting one treatment modality over another (endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) or open repair (OR)), as well as treatment strategy (staged AAA-, cancer first or simultaneous procedures) in patients with AAA and concomitant cancer.

METHODS

Literature review, including studies published from 2000 to 2021 on surgical treatment in patients with AAA and concomitant cancer and related outcomes (30-day morbidity/complications as well as 30-day and 3-year mortality).

RESULTS

24 studies comprising 560 patients undergoing surgical treatment of AAA and concomitant cancer were included. Of these, 220 cases were treated with EVAR and 340 with OR. Simultaneous procedures were performed in 190 cases, 370 received staged procedures. The 30-day mortality for EVAR versus OR was 1% and 8%, corresponding to a relative risk (RR) of 0.11 (95% CI: 0.03-0.46, p = 0.002). No difference in mortality was observed between staged versus simultaneous procedure nor between AAA-first versus cancer-first strategy, RR 0.59 (95% CI: 0.29-1.1, p = 0.13) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.34-2.31, p = 0.80), respectively. Overall, 3-year mortality was 21% for EVAR and 39% for OR from 2000-2021, while the mortality up to 3 years after EVAR within recent years (2015-2021) was 16%.

CONCLUSION

This review supports EVAR treatment as first choice if suitable. No consensus was established on treating either the aneurysm or the cancer first or simultaneously. Long-term mortality after EVAR was comparable to non-cancer patients within recent years.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy postopen aortic replacement for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a case report

Colectomy for colorectal cancer after an open aortic replacement (OAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms has high perioperative complication and mortality rates.

Case presentation

The authors report the case of an 87-year-old man who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. The patient presented with edema of the lower legs and face, and blood test results indicated anemia. The patient had a history of OAR for an abdominal aortic aneurysm 9 years prior, a left common iliac artery aneurysm, and a jump bypass graft. A colonoscopy revealed a type 2 lesion in the sigmoid colon; he was diagnosed with moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. Preoperative computed tomography did not show any obvious lymph node or distant metastases. Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy with D3 lymphadenectomy was planned. During surgery, the use of the lateral approach allowed sigmoid mesocolon mobilization while confirming the presence of the artificial arteries. As the approach to the root of the inferior mesenteric artery was difficult, D1 lymphadenectomy was performed. No evidence of anastomotic leakage or artificial artery infection was observed postoperatively.

Clinical discussion

Intra-abdominal adhesions due to the prior OAR makes sigmoid mesocolon mobilization difficult. In cases where laminar structure cannot be recognized, other landmarks are needed.

Conclusions

After OAR, artificial arteries can be used as landmarks during colectomy. Although laparoscopic surgery is technically challenging, the magnified view provides an advantage in identifying these landmarks. Patients' surgical records for the previous OAR should be checked, and the positions of the vessels and ureters should be elucidated preoperatively using computed tomography.

Stage II Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma after Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Case Report and Literature Review

BACKGROUNDS

Concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and gastrointestinal malignancies are uncommon. Endovascular repair (EVAR) is widely used to treat AAA. However, no consensus exists on the optimal strategy for treating AAA when associated with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In addition, only few reports of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) after EVAR exist.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A pancreatic tumor was detected during follow-up after EVAR for AAA in an 83-year-old female patient. The diagnosis was high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. Modified pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy was safely performed. The patient recovered moderately and was discharged two weeks after surgery. The pathological diagnosis was middle-grade pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The patient survived for 24 months with no recurrence or cardiovascular complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting periodic follow-ups after AAA surgery is helpful for the early discovery of gastrointestinal tumors. EVAR surgery is safe and feasible and thus recommended for AAA patients with pancreatic cancer, although it may increase the risk of cancer. The stage of malignancy and post-EVAR medical history can be valuable in evaluating the benefits of pancreatic surgery for such cases.

Synchronous colorectal cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysm treated simultaneously. Is a one-stage surgery a feasible treatment?

The finding of synchronous abdominal aortic aneurysm and colorectal cancer is rare. There is no consensus on which is the best surgical approach, so its management remains uncertain. A 64-year-old man was diagnosed with synchronous abdominal aortic aneurysm and rectal cancer. One-stage treatment was performed: He underwent endovascular aortic repair followed by simultaneous laparoscopic tumor resection. In our experience, one-stage minimally invasive surgery could be a safe and feasible treatment for concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and colorectal cancer.

Sequential Minimally Invasive Treatment of Concomitant Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Colorectal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

The surgical management of concomitant occurrence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is still controversial. Conversely, benefits from a minimally invasive approach are well known concerning the treatment of both AAA and CRC. The aim of this study is to assess safety and feasibility of a sequential 2-staged minimally invasive during the same recovery by endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) technique and laparoscopic colorectal resection.

METHODS

From January 2008 to December 2020, all patients with concomitant AAA and CRC were consecutively treated by EVAR and laparoscopic colorectal resection. Perioperative data were retrospectively collected in order to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes following the sequential 2-staged procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 24 patients were included. The localization of the aneurysm was infrarenal abdominal aortic in 23 cases and in one case of common iliac artery. EVAR procedure has always been performed first. In 18 patients, a percutaneous access has been used while in 6 patients a surgical access has been adopted. Twelve patients had cancer in the left colon, 9 in the right colon, and 3 patients had rectal cancer. No conversions or intraoperative complications had occurred during laparoscopic surgery. The major complications rate after EVAR and CRC surgery was 8.3% and 12.5%, respectively. The mean interval between EVAR and CRC treatment was 7.8 ± 1 and the mean length of stay was 15.4 ± 3.6. No deaths occurred during hospitalization and between the procedures. Overall mortality was 20.8% with a mean follow-up of 39.41 ± 19.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Elective sequential 2-staged minimally invasive treatment is a safe and feasible approach with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates and it should be adopted in current clinical practice to manage concomitant AAA and CRC.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the management of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms and renal tumours

OBJECTIVES

The treatment of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms and renal tumours is controversial. The aim of this study was to ascertain which of the following three strategies, one-stage open aneurysm repair and nephrectomy, two-stage open aneurysm repair and nephrectomy or two-stage endovascular aneurysm repair and nephrectomy, is the best approach.

METHODS

systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published between January 1992 and April 2021 describing the treatment of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysms and renal tumours.

RESULTS

A total of 1168 records were identified. After the selection process, 12 studies with data on 89 patients were included. Sixty-two patients underwent one-stage open procedures, 18 patients underwent two-stage open procedures and nine underwent two-stage endovascular procedures. The overall postoperative mortality was 0.82% (95% CI, 0.00-4.61). The postoperative mortality for one-stage open procedures was 3.09% (95% CI, 0.00-10.11). No deaths occurred in the postoperative period open two-stage procedures or two-stage endovascular procedures. The weighted postoperative morbidity for all procedures was 23.86% (95% CI, 12.64-35.08) and for open one-stage procedures was 37.40% (95% CI, 14.33-60.47). Data concerning postoperative complications of two-stage open procedures were extractable from only one patient in whom no complications were reported. Two postoperative complications were reported after two-stage endovascular procedures from a total of six patients with extractable postoperative data. We were unable to perform meta-analysis on long-term outcomes as the data were reported non-uniformly.

CONCLUSION

There is currently no evidence to suggest that any procedure is associated with better outcomes. However, a one-stage open approach was the most commonly used option, favoured as it avoids delaying treatment of either of the conditions. Two-stage open procedures were preferred in cases where the surgical risk of a one-stage procedure was higher than the potential benefit. For such cases, two-stage endovascular repair is becoming more popular as a less invasive approach.

Management of abdominal aortic aneurysm and concomitant malignant disease

INTRODUCTION

Concomitant malignant disease and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) represent a challenging issue in terms of treatment priority, timing and perspectives. This systematic review provides an overview of the available literature about AAA and concomitant malignant disease.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a literature search of all the English-language medical literature in Medline (through PubMed), Embase, Clinical Trial databases and the Cochrane Library up to December 31st, 2018.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature about AAA and concomitant malignant disease is mostly based on retrospective small case series. Two recently published meta-analyses focusing on the management of AAA and concomitant abdominal neoplasms came to the same conclusion "treat what is most threatening or symptomatic first." The threshold to treat asymptomatic AAA should not be altered in patients with AAA and concomitant cancer including cases under chemotherapy. An asymptomatic AAA of at least 55 mm anatomically suitable for EVAR, should only be treated first in patients with at least a life expectancy of two years followed by staged cancer surgery two weeks later.

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions about management of AAA and concomitant malignant disease should be based on clinical judgment applied individually in a multidisciplinary setting ("treat first what kills first"). The indication for treatment is not different than in patients with AAA without cancer. A staged approach is preferable and ideally the AAA should be excluded by endovascular means if anatomically suitable. An international registry should be initiated to gather more evidence about the management and outcomes of patients with AAA and concomitant carcinoma.

Synchronous Gastrointestinal Tumor and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm or Dissection Treated with Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Followed by Tumor Resection

Objective

To evaluate the strategy in the management of patients with synchronous gastrointestinal tumor and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) or abdominal aortic dissection (AAD) undergoing endovascular repair followed by tumor resection.

Materials and Methods

Five patients with synchronous gastrointestinal tumor and AAA or AAD were treated by endovascular repair followed by tumor resection. Clinical data were retrospectively analyzed with respect to the management strategy, safety, and outcome.

Results

Endovascular repair was technically successful in all patients. All the stents were well positioned and well patent, and the AAA (n = 3) or AAD (n = 2) were correctly excluded without endoleaks. After endovascular repair, all patients underwent resection of gastrointestinal tumor. No late mortality or major complications related to the two procedures were observed in the subsequent follow-up.

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that EVAR could significantly shorten the delay between AAA and gastrointestinal procedure with an excellent postoperative outcome. If the anatomical criteria are satisfied, EVAR followed by tumor resection might be an effective treatment for concomitant AAA and gastrointestinal tumor.

Effects of Chemotherapy in Patients with Concomitant Aortic Aneurysm and Malignant Disease

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to present the results in a consecutive series of patients affected by aortic abdominal aneurysm and to underline the aneurysmal growth and evolution in oncological patients submitted to dedicated oncological medical therapy.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and June 2016 we treated in our center 19 patients for coexisting aortic aneurysms (>3 cm) and malignancy. We observed patients undergoing oncological treatment and patients who did not undergo medical treatment. We studied computed tomography (CT) scan at the time when patients were addressed at our follow-up or treatment and we analyzed retrospectively prior CT scan at 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

Among those 19 patients, 7 patients were affected by colorectal cancer (36.8%), 6 by urinary tract cancer (31.6%), 4 by lymphoma (21%), and 2 by lung cancer (10.6%). In 8 patients who did not undergo oncological therapy, we did not observe any aortic growth; instead, in other 4 patients who underwent oncological medical therapy (3 abdominal aortic aneurysms and 1 thoracic aneurysm), we observed a mean sac growth of 2.9 cm in 6 months with 2 cases of aortic rupture treated in urgent fashion. The treatment was open surgery in 2 cases and endovascular in other cases.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that oncological drugs may play a role in aneurysm growth. Few case reports are found in the literature and more evidences are to be found. Those information may influence intention-to-treat small aneurysms in short life expectancy patients.

Three-Stage Esophagectomy Combined with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: First Case in the Literature

The purpose of this report is to describe the synchronous surgical treatment of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with concomitant esophageal cancer with a 3-stage esophagectomy, a real management challenge especially in establishing the therapeutic priorities and the ideal treatment approach. A 65-year-old male was referred for treatment in our hospital with the diagnosis of AAA. He complained of general fatigue, weight loss, and intermittent dysphagia. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography and upper endoscopy showed the AAA and a large gastroesophageal junction tumor, respectively. Considering his age and the absence of severe comorbidities, he underwent 3-stage esophagectomy combined with AAA repair. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course and was discharged on the 15th postoperative day. He was offered adjuvant chemotherapy and remains free of disease and with a patent aortic graft at 18 months of follow-up.

Synchronous colorectal malignancy and abdominal aortic aneurysm treated with endovascular aneurysm repair followed by laparoscopic colectomy

Although the incidence of synchronous abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and malignancies is increasing, there has been no clear consensus in the surgical treatment of such patients. The focus on surgical treatments with minimal invasiveness, such as endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for AAA and laparoscopic colectomy for colorectal cancer, has increased; however, the clinical applicability of combination treatment with EVAR and laparoscopic colectomy has not been established. A 61-year-old man was diagnosed with AAA, advanced sigmoid colon cancer, and coronary artery stenosis. Because the patient also had chronic renal failure with nephrotic syndrome, among several other comorbidities, surgery was considered to be associated with high risks in this patent. Sequential treatments with percutaneous coronary intervention, EVAR, and laparoscopic colectomy were successfully performed. Staged treatment of EVAR followed by laparoscopic colectomy may be a promising strategy for high-risk patients with AAA associated with malignancy.

Meta-analysis of Outcomes Following Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Synchronous Intra-abdominal Malignancy

OBJECTIVES

The management of concomitant intra-abdominal malignancy (IAM) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains a challenge, even though malignancy is common in an elderly population. By means of systematic review and meta-analysis, the aim was to investigate outcomes in patients undergoing open (OAR) or endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) that have a concomitant malignancy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed (Medline and EMBASE databases) to identify all series reporting outcomes of AAA repair (OAR or EVAR) in patients with concomitant IAM. Meta-analysis was applied to assess mortality and major morbidity at 30 days and long term.

RESULTS

The literature review identified 36 series (543 patients) and the majority (18 series) reported on patients with colorectal malignancy and AAA. Mean weighted mortality for OAR at 30 days was 11% (95% CI: 6.6% to 17.9%); none of the EVAR patients died peri-operatively. The weighted 30-day major complication rate for EVAR was 20.4% (10.0-37.4%) and for OAR it was 15.4% (7.0-30.8%). Most patients had their AAA and malignancy treated non-simultaneously (56.6%, 95% CI, 42.1-70.1%). In the EVAR cohort, three patients (4.6%) died at last follow-up (range 24-64 months). In the OAR cohort 23 (10.6%) had died at last follow up (range from 4 to 73 months).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, OAR was associated with significant peri-operative mortality in patients with an IAM. EVAR should be the first-line modality of AAA repair. The majority of patients were not treated simultaneously for the two pathologies, but further investigation is necessary to define the optimal timing for each procedure and malignancy.

Management of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the literature and perform an analysis of outcomes of treatment of concomitant colorectal cancer (CRC) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with a focus on the different treatment options and the related therapeutic outcomes.

METHODS

A review of the English-language medical literature from 1980 to 2015 was undertaken using the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify studies reporting surgical treatment of patients with concomitant CRC and AAA. The search identified 24 articles encompassing 254 patients (81% male; mean age 73.5 ± 6.1 years).

RESULTS

In 96 patients (37.9%) cancer resection was performed first, followed by AAA repair at a later stage (open aortic repair [OAR], 79.2%; endovascular abdominal aortic repair [EVAR], 20.8%). Eighty-two patients (32.3%) underwent AAA repair (OAR, 47.5%; EVAR, 52.5%) before CRC resection. Seventy-one patients (27.9%) underwent combined OAR and CRC resection, and just five (1.9%) were treated with EVAR and cancer surgery in a single stage. There were eight of 96 interval AAA ruptures (8.3%), mostly in the early postoperative period concerning aneurysms >6 cm in diameter. The mean interval between the two procedures was much shorter in patients treated with EVAR than OAR (11.5 ± 1.8 days vs 103.9 ± 42.3 days). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 10.9%. Data from observational studies showed no significant differences in 30-day mortality between patients treated in one or two stages (P = .89). No mortality was recorded in any of the EVAR-treated patients. There was only one graft infection recorded (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among different approaches, no significant differences in 30-day outcomes among patients treated in either two or one stage were evident. EVAR showed the lowest mortality and also diminished the delay between the two procedures in <2 weeks for a two-stage approach, although it has been associated with a significant risk for thrombotic events. The coexistence of AAA and CRC seems to favor the use of EVAR in treating those patients.

Current surgical management of abdominal aortic aneurysm with concomitant malignancy in the endovascular era

PURPOSE

The management of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with concomitant malignancy is controversial in terms of which treatment should come first. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) as the initial treatment prior to the treatment of malignancy for patients with AAA and concomitant malignancy.

METHODS

EVAR for AAA was performed in 1,175 cases between April 2007 and April 2014, of which 63 patients (5.4 %) who had AAAs and malignancy were identified. The clinical details and outcomes for patients with AAA and malignancy were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients with AAA and malignancy was 76.6 years. Thirty-three patients underwent EVAR before surgery for their malignancies, and 30 patients received chemoradiotherapy following EVAR. No significant differences in the length of stay (LOS), 30-day mortality, and morbidities were observed in all groups. However, the overall survival rate of the patients who had AAA and malignancy was lower than those who had only AAA (P < 0.0001). The mean intervals from EVAR to surgery and chemoradiotherapy for malignancy in our institution were 13.4 days (overall 38.1 days) and 5.8 days (overall 18.2 days), respectively.

CONCLUSION

EVAR for patients with AAA and concomitant malignancy may be acceptable in terms of a short LOS and resulting in treatment for malignancy without delay.

Open versus Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm in the Elective and Emergent Setting in a Pooled Population of 37,781 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. We evaluated the incidence of mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) in endovascular repair (EVAR) as compared to open aneurysm repair (OAR) in both elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA ) setting. Methods. We analyzed the rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and hospital length of stay (LOS) based on comparative observation and randomized control trials involving EVAR and OAR. Results. 41 trials compared EVAR to OAR with a total pooled population of 37,781 patients. Analysis of elective and ruptured AAA repair favored EVAR with respect to 30-day mortality with a pooled odds ratio of 0.19 (95% CI 0.17–0.20; I² = 88.9%; P < 0.001). There were a total of 1,835 30-day MI events reported in the EVAR group as compared to 2,483 events in the OAR group. The pooled odds ratio for elective AAA was 0.74 (95% CI 0.58–0.96; P = 0.02) in favor of EVAR. The average LOS was reduced by 296.75 hrs (95% CI 156.68–436.82 hrs; P < 0.001) in the EVAR population. Conclusions. EVAR has lower rates of 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, and LOS in both elective and ruptured AAA repair.

Concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastrointestinal malignancy: evolution of treatment paradigm in the endovascular era - review article

The incidence of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastrointestinal malignancy is rare. Current treatment strategies in patients with both lesions remain controversial. It is unclear whether to treat the AAA and gastrointestinal malignancy simultaneously or in a staged manner. In patients with concomitant AAA and gastrointestinal malignancy surgical orthodoxy dictates that the most symptomatic lesion or the most life threatening condition should be treated first, however there is a therapeutic dilemma when neither or both of the lesions are symptomatic .In this review we explore (a) Priority of treatment in patients with concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastrointestinal malignancy (b) The role of EVAR in the management of abdominal aortic aneurysm and concomitant gastrointestinal malignancy.

Myeloid sarcoma infiltration of aortic stent-graft causing chronic hemorrhage

PURPOSE

To report a rare case of myeloid sarcoma infiltration of an aortic stent-graft causing chronic hemorrhage and mimicking stent-graft infection.

CASE REPORT

A 90-year-old man presented 8 years after endovascular aneurysm repair with general malaise, nausea, abdominal pain, and hyperbilirubinemia. His inflammatory blood markers were elevated, and an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan showed unusual fluid and soft tissue collection around the stent-graft. A presumptive diagnosis of stent-graft infection was made, and he was started on intravenous antibiotics because he was not fit for surgery. His condition gradually deteriorated in hospital. Four months later he died of sudden hemodynamic collapse and shock. Postmortem examination revealed large malignant periaortic lymphadenopathy with suggestion of stent-graft infiltration and chronic hemorrhage. Histology of the lymph nodes confirmed myeloid sarcoma.

CONCLUSION

Soft tissue and fluid collections around an aortic stent-graft on CT are not always indicative of a graft infection; malignant tumors, although rare, should be considered.

Successful staged management of simultaneous abdominal aortic aneurysm and renal tumor: the novel minimally invasive treatment with endovascular aneurysm repair and retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in an elderly and high-risk case

The association between abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and renal tumor is becoming more frequent, and the increasing incidence of this synchronous diseases raised questions about the procedures of treatment. In most of the previous cases, open nephrectomy and AAA surgery have been reported, however in high risk and elderly patients, the procedure is life threatening. We present a successful staged treatment of AAA and renal tumor using novel minimally invasive treatment with endovascular aneurysm repair and retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in an elderly and high-risk case.

Lesson learned from early and long-term results of 327 cases of coexisting surgical abdominal diseases and aortic aneurysms treated in open and endovascular surgery

Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) frequently have other abdominal pathologies of surgical interest (other diseases, OD). Out of 1,375 elective open aortic replacements for AAA, 315 cases with OD were subdivided in Group 1 (82 patients with "clean wound" OD) and Group 2 (233 patients with "clean-contaminated wound" OD). The results of the sub-groups in which OD was treated at the same time as AAA were analysed (1a, 66 cases and 2a, 86 cases) and compared with OD not treated at the same time as AAA (1b, 16 cases and 2b, 147 cases). EVAR was done in 12 patients with a infrarenal AAA and concomitant abdominal disease. In this group post-operative complications occurred in two patients (endoleaks) and no sign of endograft infection was developed. Mean follow-up was 36 months. Mortality was 0% in Group 1a, 1b, 2b and 5.8% in Group 2a. In Group 1a there were one haemoperitoneum, one ischaemic colitis and one graft infection. In Group 1b there were 4 nefrectomies for renal carcinoma and three emergency hernia repairs within 18 months from AAA operation. In Group 2a the follow-up was uneventful. In Group 2b there was no acute complication of OD and 57.2% of patients were subsequently operated for OD. In the EVAR group the 30-day and late mortality rates were 0 and 25%, respectively and all deaths were cancer-related. Contemporary correction of OD in open surgery for AAA should be performed in clean wound cases, while clean-contaminated operations can be done only in selected cases. EVAR is a valid alternative technique to open vascular surgery for the concomitant treatment of aortic aneurysms and abdominal pathologies.

A one-stage operation for abdominal aortic aneurysm and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: report of a case

Pancreatic surgery concomitant with abdominal aortic repair is rarely chosen due to concerns about prosthetic infection following pancreatic leakage and the poor prognosis of pancreatic neoplasms. We herein report a successfully treated case of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas treated by a one-stage operation. A 75-year-old male with a history of cerebral infarction and chronic subdural hematoma was referred to our department with a pulsatile abdominal mass. A 70-mm infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with severe proximal neck angulation and a 28-mm multilocular cystic tumor with mural nodules in the pancreas body were detected. Abdominal aortic repair with a prosthetic graft and distal pancreatectomy were performed simultaneously. The postoperative course was mostly uneventful, and he was discharged to a rehabilitation facility.

Simultaneous endovascular aneurysm repair and distal gastrectomy in a patient with concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and advanced gastric cancer

The optimal surgical management of patients with concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and gastrointestinal malignancy remains controversial. A 79 year-old man who presented with hematemesis was found to have advanced gastric cancer concomitant with infrarenal AAA. The patient underwent simultaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and distal gastrectomy. The postoperative course was uneventful. The present case illustrates the clinical utility of EVAR for the high-risk patient with concomitant AAA and gastrointestinal malignancy.

Management of concurrent colorectal cancer and vascular disease in the endovascular era

Concurrent colorectal cancer (CRC) and vascular disease, such as abdominal aortic aneurysm, represents a challenging clinical situation. Both lesions may lead to the demise of the patient and therefore should be treated. Endovascular techniques may enhance decision-making and even permit single-stage treatment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective review of patients in a university department with extensive endovascular experience. Between 2004 and 2010, seven patients with synchronous vascular disease and colorectal cancer were identified.

RESULTS

The mean age was 73 years, and all patients were men. Five patients had concurrent CRC and aneurysmal disease. Two had synchronous critical carotid artery stenosis and CRC. All vascular lesions were treated with endovascular techniques. All CRC were resected with open techniques. In four patients, endovascular repair followed by staged CRC resection was performed. In three patients, single-stage procedures were performed. There was one perioperative death, for a mortality of 14.3% in our series. There were no graft infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Priority of treating concurrent vascular disease and CRC remains a dilemma. Combined treatment with a single-stage procedure is feasible. Risk of graft infection may be lower than expected.

Management of concomitant cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background. The coexistence of neoplasm and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) presents a real management challenge. This paper reviews the literature on the prevalence, diagnosis, and management dilemmas of concurrent visceral malignancy and abdominal aortic aneurysm. Method. The MEDLINE and HIGHWIRE databases (1966-present) were searched. Papers detailing relevant data were assessed for quality and validity. All case series, review articles, and references of such articles were searched for additional relevant papers. Results. Current challenges in decision making, the effect of major body-cavity surgery on an untreated aneurysm, the effects of major vascular surgery on the treatment of malignancy, the use of EVAR (endovascular aortic aneurysm repair) as a fairly low-risk procedure and its role in the management of malignancy, and the effect of other challenging issues such as the use of adjuvant therapy, and patients informed decision-making were reviewed and discussed. Conclusion. In synchronous malignancy and abdominal aortic aneurysm, the most life-threatening lesion should be addressed first. Endovascular aneurysm repair where possible, followed by malignancy resection, is becoming the preferred initial treatment choice in most centres.

Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm with Concomitant Urologic Malignancy: Treatment Results in the Era of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

During diagnostic workup for urologic malignancies, an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is identified in a proportion of patients. In the era of open AAA repair, these patients presented a surgical dilemma with regard to the sequence of the operations: cancer treatment first or AAA repair first? Previous assessments have concluded that irrespective of the followed strategy, the early and mediumterm mortality from the two operative procedures in this patient category was significant. With the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), the mortality and morbidity associated with the treatment of both pathologic conditions may be more favorable than with open aneurysm repair. The objective of this study was to assess, in an institutional series of patients receiving EVAR, the early and long-term survival and complication rates in patients with urologic malignancies. In a series of 385 patients receiving EVAR, 14 had a concomitant urologic malignancy: renal cell carcinoma (5 patients), prostate carcinoma (6 patients), and carcinoma of the bladder (3 patients). The first-month mortality was nil. Long-term survival was 80%, 83%, and 67% for the three tumor types, respectively. EVAR offers improved treatment in patients with concomitant AAA and urologic malignancy and should be considered the first choice for these patients.

Concurrent colorectal malignancy and abdominal aortic aneurysm: a multicentre experience and review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

There is lack of consensus regarding concurrent vs. staged approaches, and the prioritisation of staged procedures in cases presenting with colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) synchronously. We aim to present our experience, review the literature on this therapeutic dilemma and examine the role of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).

DESIGN, MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational study of the experience of two centres and a systematic review of the published literature.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were identified from the prospective databases of two tertiary referral centres between 2001 and 2006. Intervention for both malignancy and aneurysm was performed in 13 patients. In 10 patients, cancer resection was performed initially and was followed by open aneurysm repair (n=3) or EVAR (n=7). Two patients (AAA diameters: 7.0 and 8.0cm) underwent EVAR prior to colonic resection. One patient was selected for synchronous surgery. There were no interval AAA ruptures, graft infection or postoperative mortalities. Literature review identified 269 such cases; of these 101 were treated by combined surgery. In staged surgery, there were nine interval aneurysmal ruptures and one aortic graft infection.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, staged management can be undertaken, without interval aneurysmal rupture. EVAR has an evolving role in preventing delay in CRC management, in high-risk patients, and during combined intervention.

Management of patients with concomitant lung cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

Management of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and malignancy is challenging. We aimed to define the coincidence of AAA and lung cancer and to determine a treatment strategy.

METHODS

The outcomes for patients diagnosed with AAA and lung cancer between 1991 and 2004 at our institution were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

We identified 75 patients with both lesions among 1,096 AAA and 1,875 lung cancer patients. Survival correlated with cancer stage; only 3 deaths were directly attributable to the patient's AAA. Of 59 patients who did not have AAA repair at the time of cancer diagnosis, 12 were repaired. Twenty-seven of those 59 patients had a 5.0-cm or larger AAA; only 1 patient with a 7.5-cm AAA had a rupture 5 months after thoracotomy and died.

CONCLUSIONS

The co-existence of AAA and lung cancer is not rare; prognosis is poor and largely determined by the lung cancer stage. Open or endovascular repair of AAA rarely is justified in patients with advanced disease unless the AAA is symptomatic or large (>7 cm). Treatment for AAAs greater than 5.5 cm should be based on stage, histology, and patient comorbidities.

A meta-analysis of 21 178 patients undergoing open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Background

Several studies have compared outcomes after elective open and endovascular approaches to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery, with varying results.

Methods

A random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken to compare operative outcomes, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality and long-term patient survival after surgery. Endpoints were compared using odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences (WMDs) or log hazard ratios (HRs) as appropriate.

Results

Forty-two studies comprising 21 178 patients (10 855 open; 10 323 endovascular) were included. In the elective setting (20 715 patients), the endovascular method was associated with a shorter stay in intensive care (WMD − 36 h; P &lt; 0·001) and a shorter total postoperative stay (WMD − 5·4 days; P &lt; 0·001). Cardiac (OR 1·76; P = 0·002) and respiratory (OR 4·01; P &lt; 0·001) complications were more common after open surgery. In the endovascular group, 30-day mortality was lower (OR 0·46; P &lt; 0·001). Endovascular surgery was also associated with an improved long-term aneurysm-related mortality (HR 0·39; P &lt; 0·001). For ruptured AAA (463 patients), the less invasive operation was associated with a reduced stay in intensive care (WMD − 100·4 h; P = 0·005) and a significantly lower 30-day mortality (OR 0·45; P = 0·005).

Conclusions

The endovascular repair of AAA offers a clear benefit in terms of reduction in postoperative adverse events and 30-day mortality. In the longer term, it is also associated with a reduction in aneurysm-related mortality, but not in all-cause mortality.

Concomitant colorectal cancer and abdominal aortic aneurysm: evolution of treatment paradigm in the endovascular era

BACKGROUND

Although the incidence of patients presenting with concomitant colorectal cancer (CRC) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is low, current treatment strategies in patients with both lesions remains controversial. Given recent advances in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), we sought to analyze the surgical outcomes of patients with concomitant CRC and AAA.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients with CRC and AAA between December 1984 and July 2007.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients with concomitant CRC and AAA were identified. Forty-six patients presented with symptomatic or obstructing CRC, which was treated with colectomy followed by either open AAA repair (n=35, group A) or EVAR (n=11, group B). Thirty-eight patients underwent either open AAA (n=26, group C) or EVAR (n=12, group D) first, followed by staged CRC resection. Eight patients underwent combined CRC and open AAA repair (group E). The time delays after CRC resection to AAA repair in groups A and B were 42 and 35 days (NS), respectively. The time delays after open AAA or EVAR procedures before CRC resection in groups C and D were 115 days and 12 days (p < 0.0001), respectively. Two patients in group B developed sigmoid ischemia after EVAR and were treated with sigmoid resection. Increased perioperative morbidity and mortality rates were noted in group C (p < 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with concomitant colorectal cancer and AAA, the symptomatic lesion should be a treatment priority. Because EVAR results in early recovery and a shorter convalescence compared with open aneurysmorrhaphy, this modality offers potential treatment benefits in patients with suitable anatomy who have concomitant CRC. But EVAR treatment should be offered with caution because of the risk of sigmoid ischemia caused by inferior mesenteric artery occlusion.

Management of simultaneous abdominal aortic aneurysm and colorectal cancer: the rationale of mini-invasive approach

The concomitant occurrence of abdominal aortic aneurysm and malignancy represents a therapeutic dilemma. Both lesions should be treated to achieve best life expectancy; the main controversy remains whether to treat them simultaneously or as staged procedures. Recently, endovascular repair has been suggested as a potential alternative to open standard intervention. We present a case of synchronous abdominal aortic aneurysm and colorectal cancer treated simultaneously by minimally invasive surgery.