Indications for and outcome of open AAA repair in the endovascular era

The benefits, safety and efficacy of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is well documented and intensively reported in multiple randomized trials and meta-analysis. Therefore, EVAR became the first choice of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) treatment in almost 70-100% of patients. Consecutively, open repair (OR) is performed less frequently in morphologically preselected patients. Anatomical condition remains the most important factor for indication for OR. Especially unfavorable intrarenal landing zone based on difficult neck anatomy like very short neck or excessive neck angulation is still the most predictive factor. Furthermore, patients presenting additional iliac aneurysms, aortoiliac occlusive disease or variations of renal arteries are recommended for OR. Randomized trials like EVAR 1, DREAM and OVER from the year 2004/2005 and 2009 showed lower 30-day mortality rates in EVAR compared to OR. However, the late mortality rates after two years became equal in both treatment options. Furthermore, reinterventions after EVAR occur more frequently than after OR. Analysis from our own data showed a higher 30-day mortality in the patients who underwent OR in the endovascular era (15% vs. 2.5%), however the number of emergency open AAA repair because of ruptured aneurysms was much higher in the endovascular era (32.5% vs. 5%). In conclusion, treatment of AAA has changed in the past decade. Nevertheless OR of AAA still remains as a safe and durable method in experienced surgeons, even in the endovascular era. High volume centres are needed to offer the best patients' treatment providing the best postoperative outcome. Therefore OR must remain a part of fellowship training in the future. To decide the best treatment option many facts like patients' fitness and preference or finally the anatomic suitability for endovascular repair have to be considered.