Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital

Cutdown Technique is Superior to Fascial Closure for Femoral Artery Access after Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Contemporary Treatment of Popliteal Artery Aneurysms in 14 Countries: A Vascunet Report

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Ensuring Competency in Open Aortic Aneurysm Repair - Development and Validation of a New Assessment Tool

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Should We Be (Even More) Restrictive in Selecting Patients for Carotid Endarterectomy?

    Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debateResearchpeer-review

  4. Infective Native Aortic Aneurysms: Call for Consensus on Definition, Terminology, Diagnostic Criteria, and Reporting Standards

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

OBJECTIVES: Arterial access closure after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be achieved using three different approaches: percutaneous closure devices, surgical exposure and direct suture ("cutdown"), and the less invasive fascial closure technique. The aim of this study was to report on the intra-operative, in hospital, and three month outcome of fascial closure and cutdown, and to determine risk factors for failure.

METHODS: The primary outcome was assessed in 439 groins in 225 elective EVAR patients recruited consecutively and prospectively from February 1, 2011 to August 31, 2014. During the study period, fascial closure and cutdown were first and second line closing techniques. Compared with fascial closure, procedures completed with cutdown had lower BMI, thinner subcutaneous tissue of the groin and more complex femoral anatomy. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and duplex ultrasound (DUS) of the groin were performed pre-operatively and three months after EVAR. Retrospective review of medical records and CTA were used to determine intra-operative and in hospital outcome, and risk factors for failure.

RESULTS: In total, 64%, 33%, and 3% were completed with fascial closure, cutdown, and closure device, respectively. Intra-operative, in hospital, and three month technical success rates of fascial closure vs. cutdown were 91% (283/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins), 89% (277/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins), and 89% (275/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins) (p < .001). Wound complications within three months were infrequent for both methods. No risk factor was significantly associated with failure after fascial closure.

CONCLUSION: This study shows that cutdown is superior to fascial closure for femoral artery access after elective EVAR. In acute EVAR, however, fascial closure is still considered to be a good and fast method, and it has been kept in the present authors' armamentarium for this indication.

Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)350-356
Number of pages7
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2019

    Research areas

  • Access complications, Cutdown, EVAR, EVAR-surveillance, Fascial closure, Fascial suture

ID: 58226178