2013
DOI: 10.1583/12-4077c.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Commentary: Flow-Diverting Multilayer Stents: A Promising but Questionable Solution for Aortic Pathologies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…There has been increasing clinical experience reported in the literature and a better understanding of its benefits and limitations. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Vaislic and colleagues reported the 3-year results of a prospective study on 23 patients treated by MFM stents for TAAAs. 28 Technical success was 100%, with no operative mortality or spinal cord injury.…”
Section: Clinical Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There has been increasing clinical experience reported in the literature and a better understanding of its benefits and limitations. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] Vaislic and colleagues reported the 3-year results of a prospective study on 23 patients treated by MFM stents for TAAAs. 28 Technical success was 100%, with no operative mortality or spinal cord injury.…”
Section: Clinical Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reinterventions in prior reports consisted of realignment of the MFM stent by stent grafts or by placement of additional MFM stents, with little evidence that these were effective. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] Other endovascular alternatives (eg, F-BEVAR or parallel grafts) are not feasible to address rupture or branch-related problems, and therefore open surgical repair is the only definitive option. Until a welldesigned, prospective randomized trial with independent core laboratory monitoring is conducted, these questions and skepticism are likely to remain.…”
Section: Clinical Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, concerns have been raised regarding the safety and efficacy of this technique in treating aortic aneurysms [24]. Persistent sac perfusion and subsequent aneurysm rupture have been reported by Lazaris and colleagues in 2012 [25]; stent rigidity leading to aortic rupture has been noticed by Ferrero and colleagues in 2013 [26].…”
Section: Commentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Others have reported on rupture post MFM implantation, but even when reporting on the negative outcomes, the authors of the various reports have conceded that technical errors were factorial, and have acknowledged that the MFM has MFM stent technology Editorial informahealthcare.com therapeutic potential [20][21][22][23]. Debing et al reported early clinical success and aneurysm-related survival in five of the six patients they treated with the MFM, with no stent migrations, retractions, thrombosis, fractures or re-interventions at 6 months [23].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%