English Polski
Vol 24, No 3 (2018)
Published online: 2018-10-25

open access

Page views 1097
Article views/downloads 921
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

The utility of Prostar XL percutaneous vascular closure device after stent-graft implantation for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

Marek Iłżecki1, Marek Majewski2, Piotr Terlecki1, Stanisław Przywara1, Wojciech Rogala1, Janusz Rybak1, Tomasz Zubilewicz1
Acta Angiologica 2018;24(3):74-79.


Introduction. Over time, endovascular techniques of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair became the principal methods of treatment of this potentially fatal disease. Currently, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) constitutes an effective alternative to open surgery, also in cases of aneurysm rupture. Low degree of invasiveness is the main advantage of this method. Introduction of a system enabling percutaneous stent-graft implantation appears to be the next step in the development of endovascular AAA surgery. Aim of the study is to evaluate the Prostar XL® closure device with regard to clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness. Material and methods. The study included 100 patients (from January 2013 to December 2015) subject to endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the infrarenal region of the aorta with the application of the Prostar Xl® closure device. Most patients were operated under epidural anaesthesia. Local anaesthesia (1% Lidocaine) was used in 36 patients due to comorbidities. A possible application of the closure system depended on a preoperative assessment of common femoral arteries using ultrasonography. Presence of atherosclerotic plaque on the anterior wall of the vessel disqualified the patient from percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (PEVAR). The main part of the procedure consisted of stent-graft implantation into the abdominal aortic aneurysm. In the final stage, puncture site on the anterior wall of common femoral arteries was closed using previously placed sutures of the Prostar XL system. The wound in the inguinal region was closed with a skin suture. Results. The analysis of obtained results demonstrated significantly shorter mean hospitalization times in patients treated with PEVAR compared to EVAR. Low rates and types of observed complications in the study group (PEVAR) compared to the control group (EVAR) are strongly in favour the percutaneous technique (PEVAR) of endovascular aortic abdominal aneurysm repair in the infrarenal region of the aorta, confirming its minimally invasive character.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Parodi JC, Palmaz JC, Barone HD. Transfemoral intraluminal graft implantation for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 1991; 5(6): 491–499.
  2. Li Y, Li Z, Wang S, et al. Endovascular versus Open Surgery Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in Hemodynamically Unstable Patients: Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Vasc Surg. 2016; 32: 135–144.
  3. Peters AS, Hakimi M, Erhart P, et al. Current treatment strategies for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016; 401(3): 289–298.
  4. Portelli Tremont JN, Cha A, Dombrowsky V, et al. Endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms has improved outcomes surgical repair. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2016.
  5. Howell M, Villareal R, Krajcer Z. Percutaneous access and closure of femoral artery access sites associated with endoluminal repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2001; 8(1): 68–74.
  6. Geisbüsch P, Katzen BT, Machado R, et al. Local anesthesia for endovascular repair of infrarenal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011; 42(4): 467–473.
  7. Nelson PR, Kracjer Z, Kansal N, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial). J Vasc Surg. 2014; 59(5): 1181–1193.
  8. Bakker EJ, van de Luijtgaarden KM, van Lier F, et al. General anaesthesia is associated with adverse cardiac outcome after endovascular aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012; 44(2): 121–125.
  9. Chakfé N, Georg Y. Commentary on 'Predictors of Failure of Closure in Percutaneous EVAR Using the Prostar XL Percutaneous Vascular Surgery Device'. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015; 49(1): 50–51.
  10. Salomon du Mont L, Mauny F, Chrétien N, et al. Obesity is not an independent factor for adverse outcome after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2016; 33: 67–74.
  11. Pratesi G, Barbante M, Pull R, et al. IPER Registry Collaborators. Italian percutaneous EVAR (IPER) registry: outcomes of 2381 percutaneous femoral accesess sites closure for aortic stent-graft. J Cardiovasc Surg(Torino). 2015; 56(6): 889–898.
  12. Sadat U, Cooper DG, Gillard JH, et al. Impact of the type of anesthesia on outcome after elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: literature review. Vascular. 2008; 16(6): 340–345.
  13. Greenberga R, Lawrence-Brownb M, Bhandaria G, et al. An update of the Zenith endovascular graft for abdominal aortic aneurysms: Initial implantation and mid-term follow-up data. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2001; 33(2): 157–164.
  14. Marlene Grenon S, Gagnon J, Hsiang YN, et al. Canadian experience with percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair: short term outcomes. Can J Surg. 2009; 52: E156–E160.
  15. Lee W, Brown M, Nelson P, et al. Total percutaneous access for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (“Preclose” technique). Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2007; 45(6): 1095–1101.
  16. Lee W, Brown M, Nelson P, et al. Midterm outcomes of femoral arteries after percutaneous endovascular aortic repair using the Preclose technique. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2008; 47(5): 919–923.