Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2026
A New Murine Model of Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair
Published on: July 7, 2013
Collagen-Based Vascular Closure Device Multicenter Italian Experience in Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Compared
Marco Panagrosso1,2, Eduardo Cavallo1, Umberto Marcello Bracale2
1Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, Sant'Anna and San Sebastiano Hospital, Caserta, Italy.
Purpose:
The Manta Vascular Closure Device is a novel collagen-based vascular closure device that has been designed specifically for closure of large-bore percutaneous arterial accesses. The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the immediate and 30-day outcome of Manta at the completion of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The hypothesis is that Manta is not inferior in obtaining hemostasis compared with the Perclose ProGlide Suture-Mediated Closure System device.
Materials And Methods:
We recruited all the percutaneous accesses for (T)EVAR performed from January 2021 to April 2023 by all the Italian Divisions of Vascular Surgery using Manta at the time of data collection (May 2023). The primary outcome is to evaluate the incidence of complications at the puncture site after Manta implantation and at 1 month, and compare this with ProGlide. We applied the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) criteria for observational studies.
Results:
Overall, 524 consecutive femoral accesses for (T)EVAR procedures were collected: 355 in the Manta cohort and 169 in the ProGlide cohort, respectively. The size of the sheath was 17.2±2.7 Fr for Manta, 15.7±2.3 Fr for ProGlide (p<0.001). No statistically significant differences between the groups regarding age, sex, body mass index, ultrasound-guided access, femoral calcifications, intraoperative, and 30-day complications. Successful arterial closure at groin puncture sites for (T)EVAR using Manta is 90.5% and 93.1% using ProGlide. Freedom for any reintervention for any complication is 95.5% for Manta and 96% for ProGlide.
Conclusion:
The 2 vascular closure devices have proved to be similar in terms of complications, without any statistically significant difference, although the median size of the sheaths for (T)EVAR was statistically significantly larger when Manta has been used, compared with ProGlide.Clinical ImpactManta® is effective in the hemostasis of the access sites following the completion of (T)EVAR in this multicenter, retrospective, case-control study on 524 percutaneous femoral accesses. Compared to the more popular Proglide®, the average size of the introducers in the Manta® group was significantly larger than in the Proglide® group.
