Background-Endovascular

Paraplegia remains one of the most devastating complications of thoracoabdominal aortic surgery and is associated with a significant increase in both morbidity and mortality. Modern aortic repair techniques use many modalities aimed at reducing the risk of spinal cord ischemia inherent with surgical management. One of these modalities that acts via optimizing spinal cord blood flow is lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage. Either alone or in combination with other interventions, CSF drainage remains one of the most frequently used spinal cord protection techniques. Despite no definitive proof of efficacy for reducing spinal cord injury, there are compelling data supporting its use. However, the potential benefit of CSF drainage must be balanced against the risks associated with its use, including nerve injury during insertion, compressive neuraxial hematoma formation, intracranial hemorrhage due to excessive drainage, and infection. The optimal benefit to risk ratio can be achieved by understanding the rationale for its use and following practical management guidelines.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared that COVID-19 was a pandemic. 1 At that time, only 118,000 cases had been reported globally, 90% of which had occurred in 4 countries. 1 Since then, the world landscape has changed dramatically. As of March 31, 2020, there are now nearly 800,000 cases, with truly global involvement. 2 Countries that were previously unaffected are currently experiencing mounting rates of the novel coronavirus infection with associated increases in COVID-19erelated deaths. At present, Canada has more than 8000 cases of COVID-19, with considerable variation in

Appropriately protocoled CT imaging provides detailed anatomic information about the aortic root and ascending aorta, allowing the assessment of which dissections have proximal fenestrations that may be amenable to an endovascular repair.

In this study, 1 in 5 TAA patients with TEVAR had endoleak. Most type I and III endoleaks required secondary intervention, while conservative treatment was most frequent for type II. Characterization of endoleak type was not always precise, and routine surveillance of all patients with endoleak is recommended.