A comparative study of the bell-bottom technique vs hypogastric exclusion for the treatment of aneurysmal extension to the iliac bifurcation

IntroductionA significant proportion of patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) have common iliac artery aneurysms (CIAA). Aneurysmal involvement at the iliac bifurcation potentially undermines long-term durability.MethodsPatients with CIAA who underwent EVAR were identified in two teaching hospitals. Bell-bottom technique (BBT; iliac limb ≥20 mm) or internal iliac artery embolization and limb extension to the external iliac artery (IIE + EE) were used. Outcome between these two approaches was compared.ResultsWe identified 185 patients. Indication for EVAR included asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in 157, symptomatic or ruptured aneurysm in 19, and CIAA in nine. Mean AAA diameter was 59 mm. Among 260 large CIAAs that were treated, BBT was used to treat 166 CIAA limbs, and 94 limbs underwent IIE + EE. Total reintervention rates were 11% for BBT (n = 19) and 19.1% for IIE + EE (n = 18; P = .149). Rates of reintervention for type Ib or III endoleak were 4% for BBT (n = 7) and 4% for IIE + EE (n = 4; P > .99). The difference in limb patency rates was not significant. The 30-day mortality rate was 1%. Median follow-up was 22 months. Complications did not differ significantly between the two groups; however, the combined incidence of perioperative complications and reinterventions was higher in the IIE + EE group (49% vs 22%; P = .002).ConclusionsThe combined incidence of perioperative complications and reinterventions is significantly higher with IIE + EE than with BBT; therefore, when feasible, BBT is desirable