Evidence Hub

Arch-First Technique for Extensive Thoracic Aortic Replacement: A Case Series of Patients With Complex Thoracic Aortic Disease

Vlasios Karageorgos, Matias Matthew Chamogeorgakis, K. Ieromonachos, Antigoni Koliopoulou, N. Papakonstantinou, P. Latsonas, Eris Ntylgia, A. Katsargyris et al.

The American journal of case reports, 2026

6 participants

Abstract

Case series Patients: Male, 24-year-old • Male, 72-year-old • Male, 73-year-old • Male, 24-year-old • Male, 50-year-old • Male, 50-year-old • Female, 69-year-old Final Diagnosis: Aortic arch aneurysm Symptoms: Asymptomatic Clinical Procedure: — Specialty: Cardiac surgery Objective: Rare disease Background Given its associations with high morbidity and mortality, type A aortic dissection requires urgent surgical intervention. Patients with Marfan syndrome present additional complexity due to underlying connective tissue abnormalities that warrant multiple thoracic aortic operations. The “arch-first” technique was developed to allow single-stage open extensive replacement of the thoracic aorta while maintaining continuous antegrade cerebral perfusion, thereby minimizing brain ischemia. In the current endovascular era, the frozen elephant trunk – a hybrid technique combining a conventional surgical graft for arch reconstruction with an integrated distal stent-graft – has gained popularity in management of these cases, displacing extensive open approaches. However, for specific patient populations, the arch-first technique remains a suitable approach. Case Reports This report describes 6 patients (5 men, 1 woman; aged 24–73 years) who were treated between June 2022 and June 2025 through application of the arch-first technique in complex clinical scenarios, highlighting its benefit in providing effective single-stage management of extensive thoracic aortic pathology. Although no…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 6 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free