Outcomes After Use of Aortouniiliac Endoprosthesis Versus Modular or Unibody Bifurcated Endoprostheses for Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms
Objectives: Outcomes after endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) have been widely published. There is, however, controversy on the role of the use of aortouniiliac endoprosthesis (AUI) versus modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis (MUB) for repair of rAAAs....
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Vascular and endovascular surgery 2017-08, Vol.51 (6), p.357-362 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 362 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 357 |
| container_title | Vascular and endovascular surgery |
| container_volume | 51 |
| creator | Gupta, Prateek K. Kempe, Kelly Brahmbhatt, Reshma Gupta, Himani Montes, Jorge Forse, R. Armour Stickley, Shaun M. Rohrer, Michael J. |
| description | Objectives:
Outcomes after endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) have been widely published. There is, however, controversy on the role of the use of aortouniiliac endoprosthesis (AUI) versus modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis (MUB) for repair of rAAAs. We study and compare 30-day outcomes after use of AUI and MUB for all rAAAs focusing specifically on patients with instability.
Materials and Methods:
Patients who underwent EVAR for rAAA (n = 425) using AUI (n = 55; 12.9%) and MUB (n = 370; 87.1%) were identified from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005-2010) database. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.
Results:
No significant difference (P > .5) was seen in comorbidities between patients who underwent EVAR with AUI or MUB; there was also no change in endoprosthesis use from 2005 to 2010 (P = .7). Patients who underwent EVAR with AUI more commonly had a history of peripheral arterial procedure (10.9% vs 4.6%; P = .053) and preoperative transfusion of >4 U packed red blood cells (18.2% vs 6.8%; P = .004). Use of AUI versus MUB was associated with more 30-day wound complications (16.4% vs 6.2%; P = .01), return to operating room (38.2% vs 20.0%; P = .003), and mortality (34.5% vs 21.4%; P = .03). On multivariable analysis, use of AUI was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.3). On subanalysis of the cohort for only the patients with unstable rAAA (n = 159; AUI = 29 and MUB = 130), 30-day mortality for AUI versus MUB was still higher but not statistically significant (44.8% vs 32.3%; P = .2).
Conclusion:
Endovascular repair for ruptured AAA using aortouniliac endoprosthesis is associated with higher 30-day mortality than using modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/1538574417703562 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1900118905</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_1538574417703562</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1900118905</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-fec92aa6cdd758feda1d6c26bb3963d54ab0f2cd101e86d44475a61dba8ecb5c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUFP3DAQhS1UxC60954qH3sJtZM4cY4BUai0CAkB18ixx9QoiRdPjLQ_qP-zXnapVCROfvK87409Q8hXzk45r-sfXBRS1GWZNCtElR-QJW8KmTWcV5-STuVsW1-QY8QnxrjkpTwii1yKJBqxJH9u4qz9CEhbO0Og9wjUW9r6MPs4OTc4penFZPw6eJx_AzqkDxAwIr32Jg4qUJ-oyfXebOiZszFoNYP5j0npNrm2Vy8K9St1C2vlwrbXbVzPMSSk7Y0f3aSG1_ZO03aCGDY44mdyaNWA8GV_npD7nxd351fZ6uby13m7ynRR1HNmQTe5UpU2phbSglHcVDqv-r5oqsKIUvXM5tpwxkFWpizLWqiKm15J0L3QxQn5vstNL3-OgHM3OtQwDGoCH7HjTZohlw0Tycp2Vp0-iQFstw5uVGHTcdZtl9O9X05Cvu3TYz-C-Qe8bSMZsp0B1SN0Tz6GNAz8OPAv1zmcFA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1900118905</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Outcomes After Use of Aortouniiliac Endoprosthesis Versus Modular or Unibody Bifurcated Endoprostheses for Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Gupta, Prateek K. ; Kempe, Kelly ; Brahmbhatt, Reshma ; Gupta, Himani ; Montes, Jorge ; Forse, R. Armour ; Stickley, Shaun M. ; Rohrer, Michael J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Gupta, Prateek K. ; Kempe, Kelly ; Brahmbhatt, Reshma ; Gupta, Himani ; Montes, Jorge ; Forse, R. Armour ; Stickley, Shaun M. ; Rohrer, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives:
Outcomes after endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) have been widely published. There is, however, controversy on the role of the use of aortouniiliac endoprosthesis (AUI) versus modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis (MUB) for repair of rAAAs. We study and compare 30-day outcomes after use of AUI and MUB for all rAAAs focusing specifically on patients with instability.
Materials and Methods:
Patients who underwent EVAR for rAAA (n = 425) using AUI (n = 55; 12.9%) and MUB (n = 370; 87.1%) were identified from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005-2010) database. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.
Results:
No significant difference (P > .5) was seen in comorbidities between patients who underwent EVAR with AUI or MUB; there was also no change in endoprosthesis use from 2005 to 2010 (P = .7). Patients who underwent EVAR with AUI more commonly had a history of peripheral arterial procedure (10.9% vs 4.6%; P = .053) and preoperative transfusion of >4 U packed red blood cells (18.2% vs 6.8%; P = .004). Use of AUI versus MUB was associated with more 30-day wound complications (16.4% vs 6.2%; P = .01), return to operating room (38.2% vs 20.0%; P = .003), and mortality (34.5% vs 21.4%; P = .03). On multivariable analysis, use of AUI was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.3). On subanalysis of the cohort for only the patients with unstable rAAA (n = 159; AUI = 29 and MUB = 130), 30-day mortality for AUI versus MUB was still higher but not statistically significant (44.8% vs 32.3%; P = .2).
Conclusion:
Endovascular repair for ruptured AAA using aortouniliac endoprosthesis is associated with higher 30-day mortality than using modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1538-5744</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-9116</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1538574417703562</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28514895</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - mortality ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - physiopathology ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery ; Aortic Rupture - diagnostic imaging ; Aortic Rupture - mortality ; Aortic Rupture - physiopathology ; Aortic Rupture - surgery ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation ; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - mortality ; Databases, Factual ; Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects ; Endovascular Procedures - instrumentation ; Endovascular Procedures - mortality ; Female ; Hemodynamics ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Multivariate Analysis ; Odds Ratio ; Postoperative Complications - etiology ; Prosthesis Design ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome ; United States</subject><ispartof>Vascular and endovascular surgery, 2017-08, Vol.51 (6), p.357-362</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-fec92aa6cdd758feda1d6c26bb3963d54ab0f2cd101e86d44475a61dba8ecb5c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-fec92aa6cdd758feda1d6c26bb3963d54ab0f2cd101e86d44475a61dba8ecb5c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1538574417703562$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1538574417703562$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21817,27922,27923,43619,43620</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28514895$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gupta, Prateek K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kempe, Kelly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brahmbhatt, Reshma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gupta, Himani</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montes, Jorge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forse, R. Armour</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stickley, Shaun M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rohrer, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><title>Outcomes After Use of Aortouniiliac Endoprosthesis Versus Modular or Unibody Bifurcated Endoprostheses for Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms</title><title>Vascular and endovascular surgery</title><addtitle>Vasc Endovascular Surg</addtitle><description>Objectives:
Outcomes after endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) have been widely published. There is, however, controversy on the role of the use of aortouniiliac endoprosthesis (AUI) versus modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis (MUB) for repair of rAAAs. We study and compare 30-day outcomes after use of AUI and MUB for all rAAAs focusing specifically on patients with instability.
Materials and Methods:
Patients who underwent EVAR for rAAA (n = 425) using AUI (n = 55; 12.9%) and MUB (n = 370; 87.1%) were identified from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005-2010) database. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.
Results:
No significant difference (P > .5) was seen in comorbidities between patients who underwent EVAR with AUI or MUB; there was also no change in endoprosthesis use from 2005 to 2010 (P = .7). Patients who underwent EVAR with AUI more commonly had a history of peripheral arterial procedure (10.9% vs 4.6%; P = .053) and preoperative transfusion of >4 U packed red blood cells (18.2% vs 6.8%; P = .004). Use of AUI versus MUB was associated with more 30-day wound complications (16.4% vs 6.2%; P = .01), return to operating room (38.2% vs 20.0%; P = .003), and mortality (34.5% vs 21.4%; P = .03). On multivariable analysis, use of AUI was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.3). On subanalysis of the cohort for only the patients with unstable rAAA (n = 159; AUI = 29 and MUB = 130), 30-day mortality for AUI versus MUB was still higher but not statistically significant (44.8% vs 32.3%; P = .2).
Conclusion:
Endovascular repair for ruptured AAA using aortouniliac endoprosthesis is associated with higher 30-day mortality than using modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - mortality</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - physiopathology</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery</subject><subject>Aortic Rupture - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Aortic Rupture - mortality</subject><subject>Aortic Rupture - physiopathology</subject><subject>Aortic Rupture - surgery</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - mortality</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects</subject><subject>Endovascular Procedures - instrumentation</subject><subject>Endovascular Procedures - mortality</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hemodynamics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Multivariate Analysis</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - etiology</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>1538-5744</issn><issn>1938-9116</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUFP3DAQhS1UxC60954qH3sJtZM4cY4BUai0CAkB18ixx9QoiRdPjLQ_qP-zXnapVCROfvK87409Q8hXzk45r-sfXBRS1GWZNCtElR-QJW8KmTWcV5-STuVsW1-QY8QnxrjkpTwii1yKJBqxJH9u4qz9CEhbO0Og9wjUW9r6MPs4OTc4penFZPw6eJx_AzqkDxAwIr32Jg4qUJ-oyfXebOiZszFoNYP5j0npNrm2Vy8K9St1C2vlwrbXbVzPMSSk7Y0f3aSG1_ZO03aCGDY44mdyaNWA8GV_npD7nxd351fZ6uby13m7ynRR1HNmQTe5UpU2phbSglHcVDqv-r5oqsKIUvXM5tpwxkFWpizLWqiKm15J0L3QxQn5vstNL3-OgHM3OtQwDGoCH7HjTZohlw0Tycp2Vp0-iQFstw5uVGHTcdZtl9O9X05Cvu3TYz-C-Qe8bSMZsp0B1SN0Tz6GNAz8OPAv1zmcFA</recordid><startdate>201708</startdate><enddate>201708</enddate><creator>Gupta, Prateek K.</creator><creator>Kempe, Kelly</creator><creator>Brahmbhatt, Reshma</creator><creator>Gupta, Himani</creator><creator>Montes, Jorge</creator><creator>Forse, R. Armour</creator><creator>Stickley, Shaun M.</creator><creator>Rohrer, Michael J.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201708</creationdate><title>Outcomes After Use of Aortouniiliac Endoprosthesis Versus Modular or Unibody Bifurcated Endoprostheses for Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms</title><author>Gupta, Prateek K. ; Kempe, Kelly ; Brahmbhatt, Reshma ; Gupta, Himani ; Montes, Jorge ; Forse, R. Armour ; Stickley, Shaun M. ; Rohrer, Michael J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c337t-fec92aa6cdd758feda1d6c26bb3963d54ab0f2cd101e86d44475a61dba8ecb5c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - mortality</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - physiopathology</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery</topic><topic>Aortic Rupture - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Aortic Rupture - mortality</topic><topic>Aortic Rupture - physiopathology</topic><topic>Aortic Rupture - surgery</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - mortality</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects</topic><topic>Endovascular Procedures - instrumentation</topic><topic>Endovascular Procedures - mortality</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hemodynamics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Multivariate Analysis</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - etiology</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gupta, Prateek K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kempe, Kelly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brahmbhatt, Reshma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gupta, Himani</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montes, Jorge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forse, R. Armour</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stickley, Shaun M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rohrer, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Vascular and endovascular surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gupta, Prateek K.</au><au>Kempe, Kelly</au><au>Brahmbhatt, Reshma</au><au>Gupta, Himani</au><au>Montes, Jorge</au><au>Forse, R. Armour</au><au>Stickley, Shaun M.</au><au>Rohrer, Michael J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Outcomes After Use of Aortouniiliac Endoprosthesis Versus Modular or Unibody Bifurcated Endoprostheses for Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms</atitle><jtitle>Vascular and endovascular surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Vasc Endovascular Surg</addtitle><date>2017-08</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>357</spage><epage>362</epage><pages>357-362</pages><issn>1538-5744</issn><eissn>1938-9116</eissn><abstract>Objectives:
Outcomes after endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) have been widely published. There is, however, controversy on the role of the use of aortouniiliac endoprosthesis (AUI) versus modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis (MUB) for repair of rAAAs. We study and compare 30-day outcomes after use of AUI and MUB for all rAAAs focusing specifically on patients with instability.
Materials and Methods:
Patients who underwent EVAR for rAAA (n = 425) using AUI (n = 55; 12.9%) and MUB (n = 370; 87.1%) were identified from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005-2010) database. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.
Results:
No significant difference (P > .5) was seen in comorbidities between patients who underwent EVAR with AUI or MUB; there was also no change in endoprosthesis use from 2005 to 2010 (P = .7). Patients who underwent EVAR with AUI more commonly had a history of peripheral arterial procedure (10.9% vs 4.6%; P = .053) and preoperative transfusion of >4 U packed red blood cells (18.2% vs 6.8%; P = .004). Use of AUI versus MUB was associated with more 30-day wound complications (16.4% vs 6.2%; P = .01), return to operating room (38.2% vs 20.0%; P = .003), and mortality (34.5% vs 21.4%; P = .03). On multivariable analysis, use of AUI was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.3). On subanalysis of the cohort for only the patients with unstable rAAA (n = 159; AUI = 29 and MUB = 130), 30-day mortality for AUI versus MUB was still higher but not statistically significant (44.8% vs 32.3%; P = .2).
Conclusion:
Endovascular repair for ruptured AAA using aortouniliac endoprosthesis is associated with higher 30-day mortality than using modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>28514895</pmid><doi>10.1177/1538574417703562</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1538-5744 |
| ispartof | Vascular and endovascular surgery, 2017-08, Vol.51 (6), p.357-362 |
| issn | 1538-5744 1938-9116 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1900118905 |
| source | MEDLINE; SAGE Complete A-Z List; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Aged Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - diagnostic imaging Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - mortality Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - physiopathology Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery Aortic Rupture - diagnostic imaging Aortic Rupture - mortality Aortic Rupture - physiopathology Aortic Rupture - surgery Blood Vessel Prosthesis Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - instrumentation Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation - mortality Databases, Factual Endovascular Procedures - adverse effects Endovascular Procedures - instrumentation Endovascular Procedures - mortality Female Hemodynamics Humans Logistic Models Male Multivariate Analysis Odds Ratio Postoperative Complications - etiology Prosthesis Design Retrospective Studies Risk Factors Time Factors Treatment Outcome United States |
| title | Outcomes After Use of Aortouniiliac Endoprosthesis Versus Modular or Unibody Bifurcated Endoprostheses for Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T05%3A36%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Outcomes%20After%20Use%20of%20Aortouniiliac%20Endoprosthesis%20Versus%20Modular%20or%20Unibody%20Bifurcated%20Endoprostheses%20for%20Endovascular%20Repair%20of%20Ruptured%20Abdominal%20Aortic%20Aneurysms&rft.jtitle=Vascular%20and%20endovascular%20surgery&rft.au=Gupta,%20Prateek%20K.&rft.date=2017-08&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=357&rft.epage=362&rft.pages=357-362&rft.issn=1538-5744&rft.eissn=1938-9116&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1538574417703562&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1900118905%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1900118905&rft_id=info:pmid/28514895&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1538574417703562&rfr_iscdi=true |