Purpose: To compare the mid-term outcomes of endovascular and hybrid procedures in treating aortic arch pathologies with an unfavorable proximal landing zone, and analyze the different indications of the 2 methods. Methods: We collected the clinical data from 59 patients with complex aortic arch pathologies who underwent endovascular or hybrid surgery from March 2018 to April 2020 at a single center. Among the patients, 45 were treated by branched or fenestrated surgery and 14 by hybrid surgery. The clinical data of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative results were retrospectively analyzed and compared. The main study indexes were the branch patency rate and endoleakage rate during the follow-up period. The secondary study indexes included the operation success rate, operative time, hospital expenses, complication incidence, freedom from reintervention rate, mortality, etc. Results: The operation success rate of all the groups was 100%. The hospital expenses of the hybrid group were lower than those of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The operative time of the hybrid group was longer than that of the endovascular group (p<0.05). The incidence of anatomic variants in the hybrid group was 28.6%, which was significantly higher than that in the endovascular group (2.2%, p=0.011). However, there were no significant differences in operative bleeding, ventilator use duration, and treatment time in intensive care units between the 2 groups (p>0.05). Follow-up was conducted for a period of 12 to 34 months. Four patients of the hybrid group experienced numbness of the upper limb (28.57%); the proportion was higher than the endovascular group (0%, p=0.002). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of endoleaks, retrograde aortic dissection, target lesion, secondary operation, branch patency rate, paraplegia, cerebral apoplexy, renal failure, or other complications in either group (p>0.05). The mortality of the endovascular group was 6.67% (3/45). Overall cumulative survival at 1 year was 100% in the hybrid group and 93.3% in the endovascular group. There was no statistical difference in the increase of the true lumen between the 2 groups for vascular remodeling (p>0.05). Conclusion: The hybrid surgery costs less and proves more suitable for treating variants of the aortic arch. The endovascular treatment still has limitations due to anatomical conditions.

Managing type B aortic dissection (TBAD) involving Kommerell’s diverticulum (KD), aberrant right subclavian artery (ARSA), and isolated left vertebral artery (ILVA), is extremely challenging. As treatment, we described a one-stage hybrid technique combined with thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) with open surgery through a supraclavicular incision. A 57-year-old man with TBAD and the three anomalies successfully underwent hybrid TEVAR. A side-to-side artificial bypass between the ARSA and the right common carotid artery was established through a right supraclavicular incision before TEVAR. The release of the stent-graft was designed from the distal aortic ostium to the left common carotid artery (LCCA) to cover the ILVA, ARSA, and left subclavian artery (LSA). Then, the ILVA and LSA were transposed to the LCCA through a left supraclavicular incision. Intraoperative angiography confirmed complete false lumen exclusion and KD, with all branches patent and without endoleaks. Computed tomography angiography 7 days and 1 year postoperatively demonstrated well-perfused ARSA, LSA, and ILVA, and a fully expanded stent-graft with no endoleaks, migration, disconnection, or stenosis. TBAD involving KD, ARSA, and ILVA in one case is rare. This is the first report to treat this pathology with a one-stage supraclavicular hybrid procedure.