3D Printing-Assisted versus Conventional Extracorporeal Fenestration Tevar for Stanford Type B Arteries Dissection with Undesirable Proximal Anchoring Zone: Efficacy Analysis

Abstract

Background: To compare the outcomes of two Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) techniques of Left Subclavian Artery (LSA) reconstruction for Stanford Type B Aortic Dissection (TBAD) patients with undesirable proximal anchoring zone. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients with TBAD who underwent either three dimensional (3D)-printing-assisted extracorporeal fenestration (n = 32) or conventional extracorporeal fenestration (n = 25) from December 2021 to January 2023. We compared their demographic characteristics, operative time, technical success rate, complication rate, secondary intervention rate, mortality rate, and aortic remodeling. Results: Compared with the conventional group, the 3D-printing-assisted group had a significantly shorter operative time (147.84 ± 33.94 min vs. 223.40 ± 65.93 min, p < 0.001), a significantly lower rate of immediate endoleak (3.1% vs. 24%, p = 0.048) and a significantly higher rate of true lumen diameter expansion in the stent-graft segment (all p < 0.05), but a significantly longer stent graft modification time (37.63 ± 2.99 min vs. 28.4 ± 2.12 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in other outcomes between the two groups (p > 0.05). The degree of false lumen thrombosis was higher in the stent-graft segment than in the non-stent-graft segment in both groups and the difference was statistically significant (X2 = 5.390, 4.878; p = 0.02, 0.027). Conclusions: Both techniques are safe and effective for TBAD with an undesirable proximal landing zone. The 3D-printing-assisted extracorporeal fenestration TEVAR technique has advantages in operative time, endoleak risk, and aortic remodeling, while the traditional extracorporeal fenestration TEVAR technique has advantages in stent modification.