Type II endoleak (T2E) represents a frequent and often challenging complication of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Endovascular treatment is the standard and most used strategy, but the recurrence after it remains high, especially due to lumbar arteries (LA) and inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) feeding. While conventional laparoscopy has been considered as an emerging method, robotic surgery is not reported yet for this indication. We herein describe our technique of minimally invasive T2E repair using a full robotic approach with the da Vinci Xi, reporting our preliminary experience with the first two patients who underwent this operation at our Institution. The procedure comprises two phases. The first phase consists of IMA ligation, left colon mobilization and infra-renal exposure of the anterior longitudinal ligament of the column and of the left side of the sac. The second phase entails the posterior aneurysm mobilization and the selective clipping of LA responsible of the T2E, as identified by the pre-operative CT scan. No intra-operative complications occurred and the average length of surgery was 183 min. The average length of hospitalization was 2.5 days. Robotic T2E repair can be considered a safe procedure and the da Vinci Xi, thanks to its increased dexterity and flexibility, allows to easily perform this multi-target operation (IMA and LA). The articulated instruments with motion scaling and tremor filtering facilitate a gently vascular dissection and an easy IMA and LA identification, dissection, and ligation. The TilePro function permits the operator to control from the console, with intra-operative color-Doppler ultrasound, the absence of residual endoleaks.
Endoleak Abdominal aortic aneurysms Robotic repair Da Vinci Xi
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
No funding was received for this project.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Luca Morelli, Simone Guadagni, Gregorio Di Franco, Matteo Palmeri, Niccolò Furbetta, Desirée Gianardi, Matteo Bianchini, Andrea Moglia, Giulio Di Candio, Mauro Ferrari and Raffaella Berchiolli declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Chaikof EL, Brewster DC, Dalman RL et al (2009) The care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: the Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines. J Vasc Surg 50:880–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum RA, Carpenter JP, Golden MA et al (2002) Treatment of type 2 endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: comparison of transarterial and translumbar techniques. J Vasc Surg 35:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aziz A, Menias CO, Sanchez LA et al (2012) Outcomes of percutaneous endovascular intervention for type II endoleak with aneurysm expansion. J Vasc Surg 55:1263–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubair MM, Chinnadurai P, Loh FE et al (2016) A novel technique combining laparoscopic and endovascular approaches using image fusion guidance for anterior embolization of type II endoleak. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech 3(1):7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touma J, Coscas R, Javerliat MD et al (2015) A technical tip for total laparoscopic type II endoleak repair. J Vasc Surg 61(3):817–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarcello E, Ferrari M, Rossi G et al (2010) A new preoperative predictor of outcome in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: the time before shock (TBS). Ann Vasc Surg 24:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gossetti B, Martinelli O, Ferri M et al (2018) Preliminary results of endovascular aneurysm sealing from the multicenter Italian Research on Nellix Endoprosthesis (IRENE) study. J Vasc Surg 67:1397–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolvenbach R, Pinter L, Raghunandan M et al (2002) Laparoscopic remodeling of abdominal aortic aneurysms after endovascular exclusion: a technical description. J Vasc Surg 36:1267–1270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voute MT, Bastos Goncalves FM, Hendriks JM et al (2012) Treatment of post-implantation aneurysm growth by laparoscopic sac fenestration: long-term results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 44:40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morelli L, Palmeri M, Simoncini T et al (2018) A prospective, single-arm study on the use of the da Vinci® Table Motion with the Trumpf TS7000dV operating table. Surg Endosc 32(10):4165–4172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmeri M, Gianardi D, Guadagni S et al (2018) Robotic colorectal resection with and without the use of the new Da Vinci table motion: a case-matched study. Surg Innov 25(3):251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morelli L, Di Franco G, Guadagni S et al (2018) Robot-assisted total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: case-matched comparison of short-term surgical and functional outcomes between the da Vinci Xi and Si. Surg Endosc 32(2):589–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morelli L, Di Franco G, Guadagni S et al (2017) Full robotic colorectal resections for cancer combined with other major surgical procedures: early experience with the da Vinci Xi. Surg Innov 24(4):321–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morelli L, Guadagni S, Lorenzoni V et al (2016) Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer in a single surgeon’s experience: a cost analysis covering the initial 50 robotic cases with the da Vinci Si. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(9):1639–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar