search for


Endovascular Aneurysm Repair by Combining Different Endografts: the Zenith Body and Endurant Limbs
Vasc Spec Int 2019;35:10-15
Published online March 31, 2019;
© 2019 The Korean Society for Vascular Surgery.

Jae Hoon Lee, Ki Hyuk Park

Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Daegu Catholic University, Daegu, Korea
Correspondence to: Ki Hyuk Park, Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Daegu Catholic University, 33 Duryugongwon-ro 17-gil, Nam-gu, Daegu 42472, Korea, Tel: 82-53-650-4053, Fax: 82-53-624-7185, E-mail:,
Received August 5, 2018; Revised September 24, 2018; Accepted October 4, 2018.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


There are several commercially approved stent grafts in Korea for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Each device has its advantages and disadvantages based on the patient’s anatomy and the clinical situation. The Zenith device allows accurate and precise endograft placement, whereas the Endurant device has improved flexibility and trackability. We reviewed 5 cases in which a combination of the Zenith main body and the Endurant iliac limb was used.

Materials and Methods

From January 2010 to February 2015, 90 patients with AAA underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using the Zenith body at Daegu Catholic University Hospital. Among them, 5 patients who underwent EVAR with the Zenith body and Endurant iliac limb were included in this study.


The mean age of the patients was 74.20±3.35 years. All patients were men. The main reason for use of the Endurant iliac limb was aortoiliac angulation. Type III endoleak, stent migration, and stent kinking were not noted. Comparing 85 patients who received a Zenith endograft with 5 patients who received the hybrid endograft, there were no statistical differences in clinical characteristics, intraoperative details and post procedural complications. The mean admission duration was 19.00±13.60 days, and the mean follow-up duration was 1,018.11±925.34 days. In the hybrid endograft group, there was no mortality during the follow-up duration.


Although the material, radial force, diameter, and length of the overlap zone differ between the two devices, EVAR with the hybrid endograft is safe and effective.

Keywords: Abdominal aortic aneurysm, Endovascular procedures, Stents, Postoperative complications

March 2020, 36 (1)
Full Text(PDF) Free
PubMed Central

Social Network Service

Cited By Articles
  • CrossRef (0)

Author ORCID Information

Funding Information