Single Centre Experience in Open and Endovascular Treatment of Renal Artery Aneurysms

Abstract

Background: The true incidence and natural history of renal artery aneurysm (RAA) remain unclear and still exists controversy over indication for treatment. Several techniques of conventional surgical reconstructions are described in literature, and more recently endovascular therapies have been reported with satisfying results and lower complication rate. This paper aims to investigate the outcomes of both endovascular and open repair of RAA achieved in a single institution involving 3 medical teams (urology, vascular surgery and neuroradiology). Material and Methods: We conducted a single-centre retrospective observational study about all patients surgically or endovascularly treated for RAA over a 15-year period. Pre-operative, procedural and post-operative data at the early, mid- and long-term follow-up were collected and analysed, focusing on operative technique used for repair and related outcomes. Results: A total of 27 patients (n = 17 (63%) women, mean age 58 ± 13.2, n = 26 saccular RAA) were included. Mean aneurysm was size was 18.8 ± 6.3 mm. Most diagnosis were accidental. Symptomatic RAA showed with macroscopic haematuria (n = 3, 25.9%), unstable hypertension (n = 2; 7%), chronic lumbar pain (n = 1, 3.7%) and renal infarct (n = 1, 3.7%).Conventional surgery (ex-vivo repair, aneurysmorraphy, aneurysm resection and end-to-end anastomosis) was performed in 14 (51.8%) cases and endovascular coiling embolization in 13 (48.2%). Mean hospital length of stay was 5.4 ± 3.6 days. Intensive Care Unit stay was needed only in the surgically treated patients (mean 1.1 ± 1.2 days). During the early follow-up, morbidity rate was 7/14 in surgically treated patients vs. 1/13 in endovascular group; it included bleeding, retroperitoneal hematoma, arterial thrombosis and bowel obstruction. The discharge imaging showed complete aneurysm exclusion and renal artery patency in all cases.At a mean follow-up of 39 ± 42 months, 3 patients (11%) were lost to follow up and 2 (7.4 %) died from unrelated cause. None of these patients required dialysis but a statistically significant (P = 0.09) decrease in GFR was noted between the preoperative period and last follow-up control. RAA repair neither showed blood pressure control improvement nor reduced the need for anti-hypertensive drug use. Conclusion: Open or endovascular techniques are both safe and efficient to treat RAA. Even though, surgical management is burdened with higher morbidity rate, the operative technique should be selected according to anatomical features, diameters and location of RRA; and the number of renal branches involved. Further larger studies are needed to define the feasibility and safety for a wider application of the endovascular approach.