Aortic arch repair is a challenging intervention. Open surgical repair is still considered the gold standard, but in high-risk patients, it is not always a reasonable option, making endovascular approaches an enticing, when not the only available, alternative for treatment. The strategies more commonly adopted are surgical supra-aortic trunk (SAT) rerouting followed by deployment of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis, chimney techniques, custom-made scalloped, fenestrated, and branched devices, and in situ or physician-modified fenestrations. If we excluded techniques involving SAT rerouting where the arch anatomy is surgically modified in order to make deployment in the aortic arch of a standard thoracic endoprosthesis possible, in the other techniques, one or more SATs are incorporated in the thoracic endoprosthesis. In these cases, no matter what solution is adopted, because of the morphology of the aorta at this level, achieving an ideal sealing is extremely difficult, and endovascular treatments of the arch are burdened by an increased risk of type IA endoleaks. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched. We identified 1277 records. After reading titles, abstracts, and full texts, we excluded 1231 records. Exclusion criteria were low-quality evidence, abstracts, case reports, conference presentations, reviews, editorials, and expert opinions. A total of 48 studies were included, for a total of 3114 patients. A type IA endoleak occurred in 248 patients (7.7%) with a mean incidence of 18.8% in chimney procedures, 4.8% and 3%, respectively, in fenestrated and branched devices, and 2.2% in in situ fenestration. We excluded from our analysis scalloped technology that is used when the target vessel originates from a healthy landing zone and represents a different anatomical setting. Type IA endoleaks are a concern with all types of endovascular aortic arch repair, and they can compromise the outcomes of the procedure. The rate of type IA endoleaks appears to be significantly higher in chimney procedures. In order to maximize sealing, whenever possible, endovascular repair of the arch should be achieved with custom-made fenestrated devices. However, chimney configurations are still a valuable solution particularly in the emergency setting, although in such a procedure, to guarantee accurate postoperative management and follow-up, an imaging protocol could be useful.

Vascular graft infection (VGI) is a rare but severe complication of vascular surgery that is associated with a bad prognosis and high mortality rate. An accurate and prompt identification of the infection and its extent is crucial for the correct management of the patient. However, standardized diagnostic algorithms and a univocal consensus on the best strategy to reach a diagnosis still do not exist. This review aims to summarize different radiological and Nuclear Medicine (NM) modalities commonly adopted for the imaging of VGI. Moreover, we attempt to provide evidence-based answers to several practical questions raised by clinicians and surgeons when they approach imaging in order to plan the most appropriate radiological or NM examination for their patients.

Purpose: Evaluate the impact of hybrid operating room (HOR) guidance on the long-term clinical outcomes following fenestrated and branched endovascular repair (F-BEVAR) for complex aortic aneurysms. Materials and Methods: Prospectively collected registry data were retrospectively analyzed to compare the procedural, short- and long-term outcomes of consecutive F-BEVAR performed from January 2010 to December 2014 under standard mobile C-arm versus hybrid room guidance in a high-volume aortic center. Results: A total of 262 consecutive patients, including 133 patients treated with a mobile C-arm equipped operating room and 129 with a HOR guidance, were enrolled in this study. Patient radiation exposure and contrast media volume were significantly reduced in the HOR group. Short-term clinical outcomes were improved despite higher case complexity in the HOR group, with no statistical significance. At a median follow-up of 63.3 months (Q1 33.4, Q3 75.9) in the C-arm group, and 44.9 months (Q1 25.1, Q3 53.5, p=0.53) in the HOR group, there was no statistically significant difference in terms of target vessel occlusion and limb occlusion. When the endograft involved 3 or more fenestrations and/or branches (complex F-BEVAR), graft instability (36% vs 25%, p=0.035), reintervention on target vessels (20% vs 11%, p=0.019) and total reintervention rates (24% vs 15%, p=0.032) were significantly reduced in the HOR group. The multivariable Cox regression analysis did not show statistically significant differences for long-term death and aortic-related death between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Our study suggests that better long-term clinical outcomes could be observed when performing complex F-BEVAR in the latest generation HOR.