RT Journal
A1 Lee JT
T1 COuld the endo-first strategy really be better?
JF Archives of Surgery
JO Archives of Surgery
YR 2012
FD September 1
VO 147
IS 9
SP 846
OP 846
DO 10.1001/archsurg.2012.2021
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2012.2021
AB 
Despite all the hoopla surrounding minimally invasive techniques that have defined the past decade of the endovascular revolution in vascular surgery, some sobering realizations have emerged. Although most vascular specialists have embraced endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, critics bemoan the loss of open aortic skill and point to durability issues as endo-enthusiasts push the boundaries. Carotid stenting vs endarterectomy continues to be a hotly debated topic for treatment, credentialing, and reimbursement. Endovascular infrainguinal interventions are still quite popular despite growing evidence that aggressive endo-first misadventures lead to worse outcomes for open leg bypass. Against this backdrop, Danczyk and colleagues1 from Oregon Health & Science University and Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center present us with an important article regarding open reconstruction after failed endovascular attempts at treating aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD).