Key result
Hybrid aortic arch reconstruction lacks clinical data because the provided text is an editorial roster.
Why the study?
Aortic arch intervention carries substantial mortality and neurological risk, leading hybrid repair to emerge as an alternative to reduce the physiological burden and technical complexity of conventional open arch replacement.
Hybrid aortic arch repair combines supra-aortic debranching with endovascular exclusion to reduce the physiological burden of conventional open arch replacement.
Hybrid arch repair should not supplant open techniques in routine practice; leaves open long-term outcomes and optimal patient selection.
Aortic arch intervention remains technically demanding and is associated with higher mortality, neurological complications, and reintervention compared with other thoracic aortic procedures. Hybrid aortic arch repair has emerged to reduce the physiological burden and technical complexity of conventional open arch replacement by combining supra-aortic debranching with endovascular exclusion to create durable proximal landing zones. With advances in device technology and procedural refinement, hybrid strategies have expanded beyond prohibitive-risk patients and are now part of contemporary aortic practice in selected anatomical and clinical scenarios. This review summarizes the evolution and nomenclature of hybrid arch repair, describes commonly used techniques and classification systems, and reviews short- and long-term outcomes, including neurological events and reintervention, in comparison with conventional open repair and endovascular approaches. We also highlight current limitations, patient selection considerations, and emerging device technologies, and we incorporate our institutional experience to contextualize real-world applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tohme et al. (2026) studied this question. Hybrid Aortic Arch Reconstruction was evaluated. Hybrid aortic arch reconstruction clinical outcomes and data are not available because the provided text consists entirely of a journal editorial board roster.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: