Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2026
Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
Published on: December 11, 2017
Comparison of minimal incision aortic surgery with endovascular aortic repair
William Turnipseed1, Girma Tefera, Sandra Carr
1Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital, 600 Highland Ave., G5/325, Madison, WI 53792, USA. turnip@surgery.wisc.edu
Background:
Enthusiasm for endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has been tempered by midterm outcomes that raise valid concern about long-term durability.
Methods:
This article compares outcome data from a prospective nonrandomized comparison of a less-invasive open surgical repair technique-minimal incision aortic surgery (MIAS)-and EVAR.
Results:
MIAS and EVAR had comparable intensive care unit stays (1 day or less), quick return to general dietary feeding (2 days), and comparable hospital length of stay (4.8 days [3.4 days for uncomplicated cases MIAS] and 2.0 days for EVAR). Overall morbidity and mortality for MIAS and EVAR were comparable (18% versus 27%). MIAS was more cost effective than EVAR (net revenue MIAS = +8,445 US dollars, EVAR -7,263 US dollars).
Conclusions:
MIAS is a safe, cost-effective alternative to endovascular aortic repair.
