Analysing debranching techniques in Frozen Elephant Trunk procedures: a narrative literature review.

Abstract

Since 2003, the Frozen Elephant Trunk (FET) technique has attained rising popularity for treating extensive aortic arch pathologies such as acute and chronic aortic dissection, as well as thoracic aortic aneurysm. Conventionally, the FET procedure included a complete resection of the aortic arch and, subsequently, a distal aortic anastomosis of the prosthetic part of the hybrid graft in arch zone 3. Simultaneous to the introduction of the FET technique, the traditional Elephant Trunk technique was simplified by adding debranching techniques which allows for proximalization of the distal aortic anastomosis. Nowadays, modern concepts of aortic arch surgery combine the FET technique with proximalization of the distal anastomosis in arch zone 2 or further proximal, achieved by using different debranching techniques. This review describes different debranching techniques to facilitate arch reconstruction, and aims to critically assess the outcomes and potential clinical advantages of proximalization using debranching in FET surgery. We conducted a search using the PubMed and Google Scholar electronic databases to evaluate published outcomes of different debranching techniques. An overview of the data synthesis of 21 included studies is reported. Most studies report numeric, but not statistically significant improved outcomes after debranching in FET surgery for mortality, neurological complications, spinal cord injury, kidney failure, bowel ischemia and recurrent nerve palsy. Some studies report statistically significant improved results in isolated endpoints such as neurological, bowel ischemia, and recurrent nerve palsy. Most studies report debranching to be technically easier, but this is difficult to objectively assess and measure. There is an improved numeric outcome of different debranching techniques with proximalization of the distal anastomosis, but without reaching statistical significance. This review shows marked heterogeneity across included studies and highlights the scarce use of existing guidelines in clinical research of open aortic arch surgery as proposed by the International Aortic Arch Surgery Study Group. Furthermore, this review demonstrates the urgent need for multicenter registries or studies to be able to compare the outcome of different surgical techniques for various aortic arch pathologies.