Endovascular Infra-Renal Aortic Aneurysm Repair performed in a Hybrid Operating Room versus Conventional Operating Room Using a C-Arm.

Abstract Objetive To compare contrast usage and radiation exposure during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using mobile C-arm imaging in a conventional operating room (OR) or fixed angiographic equipment in a hybrid OR. Methods Retrospective unicenter study from may 2016 to august 2019. All consecutives patients undergoing standard EVAR were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Group OR included EVARs performed in a conventional OR with a mobile C-arm (May 2016 to April 2018) and group HR included EVARs performed with a fixed angiographic equipment in a hybrid OR (May 2018 to August 2019). Data collected included patient demographics, aneurysm diameter, neck length, radiation dose: median dose-area product (DAP), flouroscopy time, total operative time, contrast use and 30-day clinical outcomes. Results We included 77 patients, 42 and 35 patients in group OR and HR, respectively. There was no difference in age, body mass index, mean aneurysm and neck length between groups. Patients in group HR received less contrast volume (108.6 mls [±41.5] vs. 162.5 mls [±52.6], P Conclusions Routine EVAR performed in a hybrid fixed imaging suite may be associated with less contrast usage but higher radiation exposure in our center . The significantly higher radiation exposure when the mobile C-arm is replace by a HR should not be underestimated.