“Why is frozen elephant trunk better than classical elephant trunk?”

The treatment of complex aortic arch disease, in chronic or acute setting, has always represented a fascinating challenge for the heart surgeon also because, often, the involvement of the aortic arch is associated with a simultaneous involvement of the ascending aorta and of the proximal portion of the descending thoracic aorta. In recent years, there have been many surgical and/or endovascular techniques and approaches in a single step or multiple steps proposed with the aim of treating and simplifying these complex conditions. The first procedure available for this purpose was the conventional elephant trunk technique, proposed by the German surgeon Hans Borst, back in 1983. In the following years, the technique has undergone modifications, up to what is nowadays considered its most modern evolution, represented by the frozen elephant trunk which allows managing the proximal descending thoracic aorta using the antegrade release of a self-expandable stent graft. In this review article, we try to analyze the advantages and drawbacks of both techniques from clinical and practical points of view.

Evaluation of conventional and frozen elephant trunk techniques on spinal cord blood flow in an animal model

OBJECTIVES

The treatment of patients with extensive thoracic aortic disease involving the arch and descending aorta is often performed using the frozen elephant trunk technique (FET). Spinal cord blood flow (SCBF) in cervical, thoracic and lumbar sections prior, during and after aortic arch surgery were compared in conventional elephant trunk (cET) and FET technique in a pig model.

METHODS

German Landrace pigs (75-85 kg) underwent aortic arch surgery using the FET (n = 8) or cET (n = 8) techniques. The E-vita Open hybrid stent graft was applied in all FET animals. Regional SCBF was measured 4 times: (i) before cardiopulmonary bypass, (ii) after 1 h, (iii) after 3 h, and (iv) after 6 h of reperfusion using fluorescence microspheres. Spinal cord segments were examined histopathologically and by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

SCBF in FET decreased significantly from 0.13 ± 0.03 to 0.05 ± 0.02 ml/min/g after 1 h (P = 0.047). While at 3 h of reperfusion, SCBF increased and was comparable to baseline (0.09 ± 0.01 ml/min/g), beyond this time SCBF decreased again (0.05 ± 0.02 ml/min/g). A similar trend was found for SCBF in the cET group (baseline: 0.16 ± 0.04 ml/min/g, 1 h reperfusion: 0.02 ± 0.01 ml/min/g, 3 h reperfusion: 0.03 ± 0.01 ml/min/g and 6 h reperfusion: 0.02 ± 0.01 ml/min/g, P = 0.019). Cervical, thoracic and lumbar SCBF were also comparable in both groups. Histological analyses of spinal cord showed no differences in necrosis between cET and FET, while no differences were found for hypoxia-inducible factor-1α and apoptosis-inducing factor. In contrast, oxidative stress and caspase-induced apoptosis were higher in cET versus FET.

CONCLUSIONS

The SCBF changed significantly during extensive aortic arch surgery with circulatory arrest and moderate hypothermia, but such changes were comparable between the FET and cET groups. The implantation of hybrid stent graft did not influence SCBF in thoracic and lumbar segments of the spinal cord. The immunohistological examination showed no differences between cET and FET regarding ischaemic damage and hypoxia-induced effects in spinal cord segments.