{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034289713086074175, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.62037037037037, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Open thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic repair vs. f/bTEVAR - complementary or competitive?]

The classical approach of open repair (OR) for thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies, including aneurysms and dissection, has been outnumbered by the use of fenestrated/branched (thoracic) endovascular aortic repair (f/b[T]EVAR) in recent years. Providing OR for complex cases in an aortic service requires a dedicated surgical setup and a huge body of expertise in this particular field.In order to reduce specific complications, such as perioperative mortality, kidney failure, spinal cord ischemia, stroke or bowel ischemia, it is necessary to apply cerebrospinal-spinal fluid drainage, point-of-care coagulation therapy, distal and retrograde aortic perfusion and sequential clamping. Despite the predominance of endovascular solutions, the specific OR expertise is still needed for specific indications, such as young patients, connective tissue disorder or aortic graft infections.Currently, the short and mid term results for f/b(T)EVAR outweigh those for OR, including the shorter hospital stay and less invasive procedures. However, OR provides better long-term results for overall mortality, re-intervention rates and secondary complications.In conclusion, in our opinion OR is a service that is still necessary for dedicated aortic centres, but will most likely become more frequent again in the years to come.