Once acute type I aortic dissection is diagnosed, emergency surgery is imperative. The primary objective during surgical treatment of acute type I aortic dissection is to keep the patient alive; a secondary objective is to reduce the need for subsequent procedures in the residual native aorta. The armamentarium of aortic surgeons includes a wide spectrum of methods, ranging from conventional open surgical procedures to minimally invasive endovascular and hybrid procedures.
The most common treatment is ascending aorta replacement, with or without hemiarch replacement, leaving portions of the aortic arch and the distal aorta untouched; as a result, the untreated, residually dissected arch, descending thoracic aorta (DTA), and thoracoabdominal aorta are prone to late aortic dilatation. Dilation in the residually dissected distal aorta, especially the isthmus segment, is most often due to dilatation of the false lumen and the elevated hemodynamic stress caused by the convexity of the unstable dissected aortic wall. Indeed, after the traditional treatment of aortic dissection by either hemiarch or total arch replacement, 90% of patients have a patent false lumen.[3,4] Therefore, definitive aortic repair of extensive aortic dissection usually requires more than one surgical or endovascular intervention, depending on the type of disease, anatomy, comorbidities, and surgeon experience.
Here, we analyze the pros and cons of using the frozen elephant trunk (FET) technique to treat acute type I aortic dissection, and we compare this approach with the conventional elephant trunk (cET) technique in clinical practice.
CONVENTIONAL ELEPHANT TRUNK
PROCEDURE
The cET procedure, first described in 1983 by
Hanover' Borst et al.,[5] is a staged procedure.
Briefly, in the first session, median sternotomy
and hypothermic circulatory arrest are used to
replace varying portions of the ascending aorta
along with the entire transverse aortic arch. A freefloating
extension of the aortic graft (the "trunk")
is invaginated and extended into the proximal DTA
to be used in the next session. In the second session,
via a left lateral thoracotomy or thoracoabdominal
incision, the trunk is retrieved and extended; the
trunk eases repair by providing a proximal aortic
clamping site that is free of adhesions and facilitates
a secure graft-to-graft anastomosis as the DTA or
thoracoabdominal aorta is replaced. Depending on
the anatomic extent of the aortic disease and patient
comorbidities, the second stage can be performed by
endovascular stent-graft placement, eliminating the
need for a thoracotomy. Some authors suggest that
the length of the ET should not exceed 10 cm because
a longer trunk is more likely to cause complications due to kinking and graft occlusion and to increase
the risk of paraplegia due to thrombosis around the
graft.[6-8]
Traditionally, the cET repair has been performed in patients with extensive aneurysm or chronic aortic dissection, but a few centers have performed the first stage of the cET repair in patients with acute aortic dissection.[9-11] However, despite reports of good outcomes for the first stage of this procedure in patients with acute dissection, the cET does not address residual patency of the false lumen of the distal aorta and is not proposed as a method to reduce the risk of subsequent distal aortic surgery.[11] In addition, regardless of the aortic disease being treated, in the interval between the two operations, there is a risk of fatal rupture in the untreated segment of the aorta. The advantages of the second-stage cET repair include less dissection and surgical preparation of the distal segment of the arch than standard distal aortic repair entails, and avoiding the need to clamp the left subclavian artery proximally, which may decrease the risk of stroke.
THE FROZEN ELEPHANT TRUNK
PROCEDURE
In 1996, Kato et al.[12] proposed a modification of
the cET in which a covered endovascular stent-graft
is deployed into the DTA during open repair of the
aortic arch, thereby distally extending repair and
possibly delaying further aortic repair or reducing
the risk that it will be needed subsequently. These
investigators performed 10 such repairs in patients
with aneurysm and chronic aortic dissection. This
innovative approach quickly evolved, and in 2003,
the Hanover group developed a customized version
of the procedure and renamed it the "frozen elephant
trunk" procedure.[13] The FET technique has been
used to treat both aneurysm and dissection, and
several modifications of the technique have been
reported.[14-16] The rationale for its use in treating acute
aortic dissection lies in the potential for extensive
remodeling of the covered portion of the DTA, which
may result from radial pressure exerted by placing the
stent-graft within the dissection's true lumen, and thus,
obliterating a portion of the false lumen. Additionally, the stent-graft stabilizes the dissecting membrane and
facilitates true lumen expansion downstream, beyond
the portion of the aorta immediately covered by the
stent-graft. It is important to choose a prosthesis
of appropriate size. Failure to do so could lead to
unsuitable oversizing or insufficient sealing of the
stent-graft. At our center, FET and related approaches
are typically reserved for patients with a primary
tear located in the proximal DTA, those with distal
malperfusion, and those with a compressed true lumen
in the proximal DTA.
Before the procedure, a computed tomography angiogram should be performed to measure the diameter of the true and false lumens at the DTA and to locate the primary tear and any re-entry tears. Basically, FET is a single-stage hybrid procedure consisting of an open antegrade stent-graft repair of the proximal DTA and conventional open surgical replacement of the total arch and ascending aorta (Figure 2). In the beginning, this procedure was performed with separate stent-grafts and aortic Dacron grafts. Nowadays, some centers without access to FET devices still use this approach to repair as an off-label use of aortic stent-grafts to facilitate extended distal aortic repair of acute type I aortic dissection. However, one-piece hybrid FET devices have been widely used in Europe and Asia for over a decade; one of these hybrid FET devices recently received breakthrough device designation in the United States.
Regarding standard FET repair, the most commonly used hybrid prostheses are the Thoraflex hybrid (Terumo Aortic, Sunrise, FL, USA) and the E-vita Open (JOTEC GmbH, Hechingen, Germany).[17-19] The stented portion of these prostheses is available in diverse diameters and differing lengths depending on the manufacturer. One commercially available hybrid prosthesis has four branches at its proximal portion to facilitate reimplantation of the three supra-aortic vessels and more rapid reperfusion of the lower body via a single side branch once the distal anastomosis is completed.
Like all aortic arch repairs, the FET procedure is performed via median sternotomy under hypothermic circulatory arrest; antegrade cerebral perfusion is used to protect the brain. Briefly, once the patient is cooled to a target temperature of 24°C, the initial steps of FET with a commercially available, one-piece hybrid prosthesis include transecting the aortic arch, reinforcing the aortic wall and obliterating the false lumen with Teflon felt, advancing the hybrid system over a guidewire into the true lumen of the DTA, deploying the stent-graft, and suturing the vascular collar of hybrid graft to the previously prepared native distal aorta proximal or distal to the origin of the left subclavian artery. After the collar is secured, the side-branch of the device perfuses the distal aorta. Rewarming the patient begins. The final steps are reconstructing the arch either using an island reattachment strategy or individually reimplanting the supra-aortic vessels into the branched graft, and completing the proximal anastomosis to the proximal supracoronary ascending aorta, addressing the aortic valve or root as needed. Several intraoperative imaging techniques can be used to make stent-graft deployment more accurate, including transesophageal echocardiography, angioscopy, and intravascular ultrasonography.[16,20]
At our aortic center, unless a total arch repair is needed to address arch dilatation, our typical approach to extended repair of acute type I aortic dissection is aggressive hemiarch replacement and antegrade stent-graft delivery under direct vision in a singlestage procedure.[15,21] The proximal portion of the stent-graft (Conformable TAG device; W. L. Gore & Associates, Newark, Delaware, USA) is notched to better incorporate the origins of the left subclavian artery and, at that artery"s level, facilitate integration of the distal suture line (Figure 3). Then, the stent-graft is sutured circumferentially to reduce the likelihood of distal migration and incorporated into the distal anastomosis of the hemiarch repair; the stent-graft, graft, and residual native aorta surrounding the base of the left subclavian, innominate, and left common carotid arteries are joined with running polypropylene sutures. Pledgeted sutures are used to reinforce the distal suture line. Repair is completed by performing the proximal anastomosis with or without aortic valve or root repair; commonly, in patients with acute aortic dissection, the aortic valve is resuspended unless patient-specific aortopathy necessitates aortic root replacement.
Another example of this approach relies on antegrade insertion of the stent-graft more proximally in the aortic arch by covering the anatomic location of the left subclavian artery with the stent-graft, and followed by either bypass of the artery or the insertion of an endovascular branch into the left subclavian artery to restore perfusion. Notably, the remaining brachiocephalic arteries are left intact, and repair is completed by a single proximal anastomosis.[22]
Also, it is helpful to select a distal anastomosis location more proximal to the anatomic origins of the left subclavian artery to avoid a deep suture line and reduce the risk of bleeding. Theoretically, a more proximal suture line also reduces the likelihood of postoperative spinal cord deficit. Additionally, the length of stent-graft may be important for maintaining spinal cord perfusion.[23] The approximately 10-cm stent-graft portion of the FET is preferred to the 15-cm version, to minimize the risk of postoperative paraplegia.
USE OF ELEPHANT TRUNK PROCEDURES
IN ACUTE TYPE I AORTIC DISSECTION
Despite improvements in cardiovascular surgery,
surgical mortality is still high, and acute type I aortic
dissection continues to represent a great challenge for
surgeons. Therefore, a more conservative, tear-oriented
approach aimed at performing a more effective and
shorter procedure with less morbidity and mortality
has generally been adopted. At most aortic centers,
standard repair of acute type I aortic dissection avoids
total arch replacement and replaces only a portion of
the aortic arch (i.e, the lesser curvature of the arch or hemiarch). Basically, cET and FET are similar in
terms of the scope of repair of the ascending aorta and
the aortic arch: Both approaches completely replace
the entire transverse aortic arch and replace a variable
portion of the ascending aorta. Both repairs are
more involved than our standard approach of limited
hemiarch replacement. The major difference between
the two techniques is how the dissection involving the
DTA is managed. In FET, dissected proximal DTA
is treated with a stent-graft in the same operation as
ascending aorta and the aortic arch repair. Conversely,
at the end of the first stage of cET, the dissected
proximal DTA is left unrepaired. In both repairs, a
large portion of the thoracoabdominal aorta is left
unrepaired, but it is thought that there may be some
difference in the remodeling of the residual dissected
native aorta, with the FET approach resulting in
widespread expansion of the true lumen.
Early mortality
Data from some of the largest studies of patients
with ATAAD who underwent FET repair suggest
that operative mortality ranges from 3 to 18%.[18,24-29]
In a meta-analysis of 15 studies of FET repair in
1,279 patients with acute type I aortic dissection,
Takagi et al.[30] reported early mortality of 9.2%.
More recently, Inoue et al.[31] compared cET to FET in
patients with acute dissection and found similar rates
of early mortality. On the other hand, some groups
have reported significantly better survival in patients
with acute aortic dissection who underwent an FET
versus cET. The Hannover group[32] reported that the
in-hospital mortality rates in cET and FET patients
were 40.4% and 15.9%; furthermore, in multivariate
analysis using a stepwise regression model, FET was
independently associated with survival. In our series
of 178 patients who underwent repair of acute type I
aortic dissection between 2005 and 2016, the patients
who underwent antegrade thoracic endovascular aortic
repair (TEVAR) had better operative mortality than
propensity-matched patients who underwent standard
hemiarch repair.[21]
Complications
The main neurological complications of FET are
stroke and spinal cord deficit (SCD; i.e., postoperative
paraplegia or paraparesis). Jakob et al.,[18] who collected
data on acute type I aortic dissection patients treated
with the E-vita Open hybrid graft, showed 7% and 5%
rates of postoperative stroke and SCD, respectively.
Similar results were reported by Shrestha et al.[19,33]
in 100 acute type I aortic dissection patients treated
with the Thoraflex hybrid prosthesis. According to a review of published series of FETs performed to treat
acute dissection, postoperative SCD occurs in 4.3% of
patients (range, 0%-13.8%) and stroke in 4.8% (range,
0%-12.0%).[28] Spinal cord deficit after traditional
total aortic arch replacement (including that as part
of the first stage of a cET) is an uncommon event.
Conversely, SCD has been described as the Achilles
heel of the FET technique. Thus, the FET procedure
incurs all the risks typically associated with total arch
replacement, as well as the novel risk of SCD.
The risk of SCD is the main concern with placing a stent-graft in the DTA. This risk is principally due to the coverage of the intercostal arteries without revascularization. In their meta-analysis, Takagi et al.[30] reported an SCD rate o f 3.5%. In Preventza et al.'s[23] recent meta-analysis of 35 studies of neurological complications in FET cases, 12 studies included repairs of acute type I aortic dissection, performed in 1,300 patients. These patients had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative SCD (2.4%; 95% CI, 1.3-4.2) than patients with chronic type I aortic dissection or aneurysm (5.2%; 95% CI, 3.1-8.5) (p=0.05). However, the authors note that the higher rate of mortality and stroke in patients with acute type I aortic dissection may have masked the rates of SCD in this group, whose preoperative conditions can include malperfusion, instability, and poor preoperative neurologic status. Importantly, a landing zone at T8 or beyond or a stent-graft length of 15 cm or more was a significant predictor of SCD.[23] In our series of 178 patients who underwent repair for acute type I aortic dissection, persistent paraplegia/ paraparesis rates were comparable in antegrade TEVAR and standard hemiarch repair groups (1.6% vs 0.9%).[21] Evidence regarding the magnitude of SCD after FET is still inconclusive. Therefore, caution is needed to avoid extensive coverage of the DTA during primary repair.
Remodeling of dissected aorta
Remodeling of the residually dissected aorta is
commonly thought of in terms of reducing the diameter
of the false lumen, as well as increasing thrombosis
within the false lumen. Remodeling is hindered by
ongoing perfusion of the false lumen; this is generally
a result of retrograde perfusion from unrepaired
sections of the aorta or from multiple entry tears within
an extensive dissection. Studies on survivors of acute
type I aortic dissection indicate that an initial aortic
diameter >35 mm, a false lumen diameter ?22 mm,
and a large (>10 mm) proximal intimal tear are a
risk factors for false lumen patency after traditional
limited surgery (i.e, hemiarch approaches) for acute
type I dissection.[34,35] Although there are few studies on survivors of cET repair for aortic dissection,
findings are mixed regarding whether any substantial
remodeling of the distal aorta occurs.[9-11]
Compared with the cET procedure, the FET technique as applied to repairs of acute type I aortic dissection aims to promote true lumen expansion through the radial pressure of the stent-graft placed within the true lumen, thereby decreasing the diameter of the false lumen and, eventually, aiding false lumen thrombosis. Several studies in FET patients show a 90% rate of false lumen thrombosis at the level of the stent-graft; this rate gradually reduces over the length of the uncovered sections, falling to 20% at the celiac axis.[17,36,37] Our mid-term results[21] in patients with acute Type I dissection (mean follow-up duration, 4.6±3.6 years) showed that patients more often had remodeling of the DTA after antegrade TEVAR than after standard hemiarch repair (p=0.002). In another study, Inoue et al.[31] reported that postoperative false lumen patency at the level of the left lower pulmonary vein was observed in 77% of cET patients but in less than 30% of FET patients; for the FET patients, this finding reflects a substantial drop from a preoperative patency rate of 73%. However, further downstream, at the level of the celiac axis (within the thoracoabdominal aorta), there was little evidence of a change in patency rates. In their meta-analysis, Takagi et al.[30] reported a false lumen thrombosis rate of 97% at the level of the stent-graft.
Because endovascular repair is generally considered inadvisable in patients with Marfan syndrome, the use of FET approaches in such patients remains limited. However, some institutions favor the use of FET approaches even in patients with Marfan syndrome. Chen et al.[38] reported on 172 patients with Marfan syndrome and acute or chronic type I aortic dissection who were followed up for an average of 6 years after repair. For the 94 patients with acute dissection, an acceptable early mortality rate of 7% was achieved, along with rates of 3% and 2% for stroke and SCD, respectively. The aortic growth rate (mm/y) was greatly reduced in the segment of the aorta covered by the FET device but was as great as 4.5 mm/y in the uncovered aortic segment near the diaphragm. Over time, 30% of patients in the acute phase had distal aortic dilation, and 15% underwent distal reintervention, mostly open thoracoabdominal aortic replacement.
Reintervention after FET
Although the FET technique has potential
advantages over the cET procedure, FET repairs only a small portion of the residually dissected distal
aorta. The need for postoperative imaging surveillance
to periodically assess the distal aorta remains, and
some patients will probably need subsequent aortic
reintervention. A meta-analysis by Takagi et al.[30] of
15 studies of the FET approach in patients with acute
aortic dissection determined an overall reintervention
rate of 10%. Similarly, a long-term study of 120 such
patients determined that freedom from reintervention
was 90% at 10 years and 74% at 15 years.[24] In an
analysis of more than 300 patients who underwent
FET to treat aneurysm, acute aortic dissection, or
chronic aortic dissection, Tsagakis and Jakob found that
patients with acute aortic dissection had substantially
less reintervention than those with chronic dissection
or aneurysm; at 8 years, freedom from downstream
reintervention was 85% versus 57% and 65%,
respectively.[20] The study by Leone et al.,[25] supports the
finding that patients who undergo FET repair of acute
dissection tend to have lower rates of reintervention.
When distal aortic reintervention is necessary, it can be
performed in an open or endovascular fashion. Typical
reintervention procedures include additional stentgraft
placement in the aorta and conventional open
replacement with the aortic graft directly anastomosed
to the stent-graft portion of the FET prosthesis.
Declaration of conflicting interests
Drs. Cekmecelioglu and Koksoy have no conflicts of interest.
Dr. Coselli consults for and participates in clinical trials with
Medtronic and W.L. Gore; and consults for, participates in
clinical trials with, and receives royalties and grant support from
Terumo Aortic.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research
and/or authorship of this article.
1) Cambria RP, Brewster DC, Gertler J, Moncure AC, Gusberg
R, Tilson MD, et al. Vascular complications associated with
spontaneous aortic dissection. J Vasc Surg 1988;7:199-209.
2) Crawford ES. The diagnosis and management of aortic
dissection. JAMA. 1990;264:2537-41.
3) Fattouch K, Sampognaro R, Navarra E, Caruso M, Pisano
C, Coppola G, et al. Long-term results after repair of type a
acute aortic dissection according to false lumen patency. Ann
Thorac Surg 2009;88:1244-50.
4) Rylski B, Milewski RK, Bavaria JE, Vallabhajosyula P,
Moser W, Szeto WY, et al. Long-term results of aggressive
hemiarch replacement in 534 patients with type A aortic
dissection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;148:2981-5.
5) Borst HG, Walterbusch G, Schaps D. Extensive aortic
replacement using "elephant trunk" prosthesis. Thorac
Cardiovasc Surg 1983;31:37-40.
6) Etz CD, Plestis KA, Kari FA, Luehr M, Bodian CA, Spielvogel
D, et al. Staged repair of thoracic and thoracoabdominal
aortic aneurysms using the elephant trunk technique: a
consecutive series of 215 first stage and 120 complete
repairs. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008;34:605-14.
7) LeMaire SA, Carter SA, Coselli JS. The elephant trunk
technique for staged repair of complex aneurysms of the
entire thoracic aorta. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:1561-9.
8) Toda K, Taniguchi K, Masai T, Takahashi T, Kuki S,
Sawa Y; Osaka Cardiac Surgery Research (OSCAR) Group.
Arch aneurysm repair with long elephant trunk: a 10-year
experience in 111 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:16-22.
9) Ikeno Y, Yokawa K, Koda Y, Gotake Y, Henmi S, Nakai
H, et al. The fate of the downstream aorta after open aortic
repair for acute DeBakey type I aortic dissection: total
arch replacement with elephant trunk technique versus
non-total arch replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
2019;55:966-74.
10) Inoue Y, Matsuda H, Omura A, Seike Y, Uehara K, Sasaki
H, et al. Long-term outcomes of total arch replacement with
the non-frozen elephant trunk technique for Stanford Type
A acute aortic dissection. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg
2018;27:455-60.
11) Omura A, Miyahara S, Yamanaka K, Sakamoto T, Matsumori
M, Okada K, et al. Early and late outcomes of repaired acute
DeBakey type I aortic dissection after graft replacement. J
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:341-8.
12) Kato M, Ohnishi K, Kaneko M, Ueda T, Kishi D, Mizushima
T, et al. New graft-implanting method for thoracic aortic
aneurysm or dissection with a stented graft. Circulation
1996;94:II188-93.
13) Karck M, Chavan A, Hagl C, Friedrich H, Galanski M,
Haverich A. The frozen elephant trunk technique: a new
treatment for thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Thorac Cardiovasc
Surg 2003;125:1550-3.
14) Di Bartolomeo R, Di Marco L, Armaro A, Marsilli D, Leone
A, Pilato E, et al. Treatment of complex disease of the thoracic
aorta: the frozen elephant trunk technique with the E-vita open
prosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009;35:671-5.
15) Preventza O, Cervera R, Cooley DA, Bakaeen FG, Mohamed
AS, Cheong BY, et al. Acute type I aortic dissection:
traditional versus hybrid repair with antegrade stent delivery
to the descending thoracic aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2014;148:119-25.
16) Roselli EE, Loor G, He J, Rafael AE, Rajeswaran J,
Houghtaling PL, et al. Distal aortic interventions after repair
of ascending dissection: the argument for a more aggressive
approach. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:S117-24.
17) Berger T, Weiss G, Voetsch A, Arnold Z, Kreibich M, Rylski
B, et al. Multicentre experience with two frozen elephant
trunk prostheses in the treatment of acute aortic dissection?.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019;56:572-8.
18) Jakob H, Dohle D, Benedik J, Jánosi RA, Schlosser T, Wendt
D, et al. Long-term experience with the E-vita Open hybrid
graft in complex thoracic aortic disease. Eur J Cardiothorac
Surg 2017;51:329-38.
19) Shrestha M, Kaufeld T, Beckmann E, Fleissner F, Umminger
J, Abd Alhadi F, et al. Total aortic arch replacement with a
novel 4-branched frozen elephant trunk prosthesis: Singlecenter
results of the first 100 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc
Surg 2016;152:148-59.
20) Tsagakis K, Jakob H. Which frozen elephant trunk offers
the optimal solution? reflections from essen group. Semin
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019;31:679-85.
21) Preventza O, Olive JK, Liao JL, Orozco-Sevilla V, Simpson
K, Rodriguez MR, et al. Acute type I aortic dissection with
or without antegrade stent delivery: Mid-term outcomes. J
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019;158:1273-81.
22) Roselli EE, Tong MZ, Bakaeen FG. Frozen elephant trunk for
DeBakey type 1 dissection: the Cleveland Clinic technique.
Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2016;5:251-5.
23) Preventza O, Liao JL, Olive JK, Simpson K, Critsinelis
AC, Price MD, et al. Neurologic complications after
the frozen elephant trunk procedure: A meta-analysis
of more than 3000 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2020;160:20-33.
24) Katayama A, Uchida N, Katayama K, Arakawa M, Sueda
T. The frozen elephant trunk technique for acute type A
aortic dissection: results from 15 years of experience. Eur J
Cardiothorac Surg 2015;47:355-60.
25) Leone A, Beckmann E, Martens A, Di Marco L, Pantaleo
A, Reggiani LB, et al. Total aortic arch replacement with
frozen elephant trunk technique: Results from two European
institutes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020;159:1201-11.
26) Leontyev S, Tsagakis K, Pacini D, Di Bartolomeo R, Mohr
FW, Weiss G, et al. Impact of clinical factors and surgical
techniques on early outcome of patients treated with frozen
elephant trunk technique by using EVITA open stent-graft:
results of a multicentre study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
2016;49:660-6.
27) Yamamoto H, Kadohama T, Yamaura G, Tanaka F, Takagi D,
Kiryu K, et al. Total arch repair with frozen elephant trunk using the "zone 0 arch repair" strategy for type A acute aortic
dissection. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020;159:36-45.
28) Di Bartolomeo R, Pantaleo A, Berretta P, Murana G,
Castrovinci S, Cefarelli M, Folesani G, Di Eusanio M. Frozen
elephant trunk surgery in acute aortic dissection. J Thorac
Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:S105-9.
29) Mariscalco G, Bilal H, Catarino P, Hadjinikolaou L,
Kuduvalli M, Field M, et al. Reflection from UK aortic
group: Frozen elephant trunk technique as optimal solution
in type A acute aortic dissection. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc
Surg 2019;31:686-90.
30) Takagi H, Umemoto T; ALICE Group. A meta-analysis
of total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk in
acute type a aortic dissection. Vasc Endovascular Surg
2016;50:33-46.
31) Inoue Y, Matsuda H, Omura A, Seike Y, Uehara K, Sasaki
H, et al. Comparative study of the frozen elephant trunk
and classical elephant trunk techniques to supplement total
arch replacement for acute type A aortic dissection. Eur J
Cardiothorac Surg 2019;56:579-86.
32) Ius F, Fleissner F, Pichlmaier M, Karck M, Martens A,
Haverich A, et al. Total aortic arch replacement with the
frozen elephant trunk technique: 10-year follow-up singlecentre
experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013;44:949-57.
33) Shrestha M, Martens A, Kaufeld T, Beckmann E, Bertele S,
Krueger H, et al. Single-centre experience with the frozen
elephant trunk technique in 251 patients over 15 years. Eur J
Cardiothorac Surg 2017;52:858-66.
34) Evangelista A, Salas A, Ribera A, Ferreira-González I,
Cuellar H, Pineda V, et al. Long-term outcome of aortic
dissection with patent false lumen: predictive role of entry
tear size and location. Circulation 2012;125:3133-41.
35) Sakaguchi G, Komiya T, Tamura N, Kimura C, Kobayashi
T, Nakamura H, et al. Patency of distal false lumen in
acute dissection: extent of resection and prognosis. Interact
Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2007;6:204-7.
36) Akbulut M, Ak A, Arslan Ö, Çekmecelioğlu D, Taş S, Antal
Dönmez A, et al. Early and mid-term results of frozen
elephant trunk procedure for acute type A aortic dissection.
Turk Gogus Kalp Dama 2019;27:135-42.