The elephant trunk is freezing: The Hannover experience

Abstract

The "elephant trunk" (ET) technique traditionally has been performed to treat complex aortic diseases involving the aortic arch and the descending aorta. Despite the fact that, in recent years, the "frozen elephant trunk" (FET) technique has been used increasingly for such pathologies, discussion is still ongoing in the surgical community regarding which of the 2 techniques is better. We compared our results using the classic ET versus the FET technique. From August 2001 to March 2013, a total of 277 patients underwent total aortic arch replacement and either ET (group A) or FET (group B) implantation. In group A, 97 patients (59 men; age 59.7 ± 12.7 years; 44.3% with aneurysm; 55.6% with dissection [48.45% acute]) underwent an ET procedure; 21.64% were reoperations. In group B, 180 patients underwent an FET procedure (126 men; age 59.8 ± 13.2 years; 34.4% with aneurysm; 63.3% with dissection [35% acute]); 30% were reoperations. In group A, in-hospital mortality was 24.7%; postoperative stroke rate was 12.4%. During follow-up, 27.8% underwent a second-stage procedure. In group B, in-hospital mortality was 12.2%; postoperative strokerate was 13.3%. During follow-up, 27.7% patients underwent further interventions in the downstream aorta. In selected patients with combined aortic arch and descending aortic aneurysms limited to the proximal descending aorta, the FET approach potentially allows for single-stage therapy, whereas a second-stage operation is inevitable with the classic ET approach. Moreover, owing to the availability of prefabricated, easy-to-use, FET, hybrid prostheses that result in significantly better outcomes in patients who have acute aortic dissection, type A, and if necessary, and provide an ideal "landing zone" for future endovascular completion, the classic ET procedure is "freezing," in the sense that it is being replaced by the FET approach.