{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017690875232774673, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0037243947858473, 'mean_word_length': 5.3579881656804735, '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}}
Are there fewer complications with third generation endografts in endovascular aneurysm repair?

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is widely accepted as a safe technique for treatment of aortic diseases since the concept was first pioneered by Volodos in 1986 and Parodi in 1991. Numerous registries have shown that this minimally invasive technique is associated with lower mortality when compared to open surgery in short and mid-term follow-up. The first pioneer devices had a high failure rate due to stent migration. This led to the creation of the first generation stent-grafts, which were associated with complications such as thrombosis of the limbs, graft migration and major endoleaks. The majority of these endostents are now withdrawn from the commercial market. However, these patients need lifelong surveillance because of a considerable risk of late complications. The materials used in the stent-graft vary with each manufacturer. Low porous fabric, suprarenal fixation and low profile devices led to the development of the second generation stent-grafts. The improvements with regards to the delivery systems, enabled reposition of the top-stent following deployment in some devices. The number of devices commercially available increased with the second generation. The third generation of stent-grafts, allowed treatment of complex aortic disease. Custom made solutions incorporate small openings, fenestrations for vessels involved in the aneurysmal disease and is already built in today's technology and available as CE marked devices. The device can be built with combinations of various branches and fenestrations in order to best accommodate the aortic anatomy of the patient. However, many issues remain with the development of this technology. There is a need for durable systems with less complicated deployment mechanics in order to be applied and more widespread. In conclusion, the third generation endografts in challenging anatomy has yielded encouraging results. With regards to short and midterm outcome and need for secondary interventions, evaluations shows comparable results with all devices performing well.