Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Korean Society for Vascular Surgery for the Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Focused on 18 Key Clinical Questions

Figures

• 

  Fig. 1. RR for overall survival in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms less than 5.5 cm in maximal diameter, comparing early treatment (experimental group) and surveillance (control group) at 1 year (A), 2 years (B), 3 years (C), and 5 years (D) after randomization. Events indicate survivors at each time point. RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 2. Odds ratio (OR) of mortality after emergent treatment (experimental group) and elective treatment (control group) of symptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms. CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 3. RRs for mortality in patients with anatomically suitable, non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, comparing EVAR (experimental group) with OSR (control group) at 30 days (A), 6 months (B), 4 years (C), and 8 years (D) after repair. RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; EVAR, endovascular aneurysm repair; OSR, open surgical repair.

• 

  Fig. 4. RRs for reintervention or reoperation in patients with anatomically suitable, non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, comparing EVAR (experimental group) with OSR (control group) at 4 years (A) and 8 years (B) after repair. RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval; EVAR, endovascular aneurysm repair; OSR, open surgical repair.

• 

  Fig. 5. RR for 10-year survival comparing OSR (experimental group) vs. EVAR (control group), stratified by mean age of the study population. (A) Mean age <70 years. (B) Mean age ≥70 years: EVAR. RR, risk ratio; OSR, open surgical repair; EVAR, endovascular aneurysm repair; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 6. OR for 1-year mortality after EVAR (experimental group) versus OSR (control group) in patients with infective native abdominal aortic aneurysms. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; EVAR, endovascular aneurysm repair; OSR, open surgical repair.

• 

  Fig. 7. RRs for total mortality (A) and reintervention (B) after endovascular aneurysm repair, comparing regular (experimental group) with non-regular (control group) imaging follow-up. RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 8. Prosthetic graft infection. Meta-analysis comparing graft removal (experimental group) vs. conservative treatment with graft preservation (control group). RR of mortality within 30 days (A) and at 1 year (B) after treatment. Conservative treatment includes graft preservation with antibiotic therapy, with or without adjunctive procedures (e.g., drainage or surgical cleaning with device preservation), according to each study. RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 9. Internal iliac artery (IIA) occlusion: results of meta-analysis. Forest plots show pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for (A) buttock claudication, (B) ischemic colitis, and (C) erectile dysfunction comparing bilateral versus unilateral internal iliac artery occlusion. Experimental group: bilateral IIA occlusion; Control group: unilateral IIA occlusion.

• 

  Fig. 10. Inferior mesenteric artery reimplantation. RR of colon ischemia during postoperative hospital stay. Experimental group: IMA reimplantation; Control group: IMA ligation (no reimplantation). RR, risk ratio; CI, confidence interval.

• 

  Fig. 11. Inflammatory abdominal aortic aneurysm: results of meta-analysis comparing retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approaches for open surgical repair. Forest plots show risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for (A) perioperative complications and (B) mortality, M-H, Mantel–Haenszel method.