The Nellix system was developed to address some of the limitations of conventional endovascular aneurysm repair, namely anatomic constraints and type 2 endoleaks. In comparison with the majority of other stent grafts comprising a single-lumen main body, which then bifurcates into 2 iliac components, the Nellix system excludes the aneurysmal sac via 2 parallel polytetrafluoroethylene-lined stents, which extend from the infrarenal aorta to the iliacs. These incorporate external expandable “endobags,” which are filled with a polymer to fill and seal the aneurysm sac, thus preventing endoleaks.

A 23-year-old presenting with an acute history of back pain, leg swelling, and claudication was diagnosed with an extensive iliocaval thrombosis, extending from the popliteal veins into the inferior vena cava (IVC) and left renal vein. He was treated with a combination of endovascular techniques, including EKOS and AngioJet. An underlying congenital IVC stenosis and May-Thurner type iliac vein compression were subsequently treated with venoplasty and stenting. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the use of EKOS for renal vein thrombosis and we highlight the complementary nature of different endovascular techniques for managing complex venous thrombotic disease.

Objective: Endoanchor fixation might be a potential adjunct for the prevention and treatment of type Ia endoleak (TIaE) and graft migration in thoracic or abdominal endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs (TEVAR or EVAR). This review aimed to explore the safety and effectiveness of endoanchor fixation in TEVAR and EVAR. Methods: A systematic review and random effects meta-analysis was conducted. Data sources were PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Results: Seven EVAR and three TEVAR studies using the Heli-FX (TM) EndoAnchor (TM) system were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 455 EVAR patients underwent primary endoanchor fixation. Technical success was 98.4% (95% CI 95.7-99.8%). The rate of TIaE and graft migration was 3.5% (95% CI 1.7-5.9%) and 2.0% (95% CI 0.12-6.0%), respectively, after 15.4 months (95% CI 1.76-29.0) follow up. A total of 107 EVAR patients underwent secondary fixation with a technical success of 91.8% (95% CI 86.1-96.2%). Rates of TIaE and graft migration were 22.6% (95% CI 9.1-40.0%) and 0% after a mean 10.7 month (95% CI 7.8-13.6) follow up. Adverse events included three endoanchor fractures, three dislocated endoanchors, one entrapped endoanchor, and one common iliac artery dissection. All cause 30 day EVAR mortality was 0.82% (95% CI 0.20-1.85%). Sixty-six TEVAR patients underwent endoanchor fixation with a mean 9.8 month (95% CI 8.1-11.5) follow up. Technical success was 90.3% (95% CI 72.1-99.4%). The rates of TIaE and migration were 8.7% (95% CI 1.0-18.9%) and 0%, respectively. Adverse events included two misdeployed endoanchors with one fatal aortic dissection. All cause 30 day TEVAR mortality was 11.9% (95% CI 5.4-20.6%). Conclusion: Endoanchor fixation in EVAR is technically feasible and safe, with at least comparable early outcomes to the latest generation of stent grafts. Endostapling in TEVAR is associated with lower technical success, higher peri-operative mortality, and potential serious adverse events. Current evidence lacks long term follow up and case controlled trials to recommend endoanchor use in routine practice.

Predicting patients that will pose procedural technical challenges in prostate artery embolisation (PAE) remains difficult, with prolonged procedural times impacting on both patient dose and resource planning. Understanding the factors that influence these parameters as well as the likelihood of technical success is therefore important in effective patient selection and procedural planning. Data were collected retrospectively for 75 consecutive patients who underwent PAE. Multiple patient predictor variables available from planning computed tomography angiography (CTA) were identified and measured objectively. The vessel angles navigated during the procedure, prostate volume, prostate artery (PA) diameter, PA origin, aortic atheroma, iliac tortuosity and baseline demographics were correlated with outcome variables (fluoroscopy time, air kerma (AK), dose area product (DAP), the number of cone beam CTs (CBCTs)) performed and whether bilateral embolisation was possible (technical success). Data were analysed using linear regression, ANOVA, t tests and chi-squared tests. Aortic atheroma severity significantly increased fluoroscopy time (p = 0.004), whilst air kerma (AK) was significantly greater in patients with smaller prostatic arteries (p = 0.009) and smaller pre-procedural prostate volumes (p = 0.038). Increased vascular tortuosity and prostatic artery origin were not shown to significantly affect fluoroscopy time or DAP. Smaller prostate artery size (p = 0.007) also increases the likelihood of either unilateral embolisation or technical failure. Pre-operative prediction of technical outcome measures in PAE remains challenging. However, vascular calcification, prostatic artery diameter and prostate volume are likely to be important factors when considering the risk/benefits of PAE. • Increased severity of atheroma and the presence of small prostate arteries increase fluoroscopy time and AK respectively during prostate artery embolisation. • Lower pre-procedural prostate volume increases the AK during procedures. • Smaller prostate artery size increases the likelihood of either unilateral embolisation or technical failure.