The aim of the present study was to compare the open surgical and percutaneous access for thoracic/endovascular aortic repair (T/EVAR) regarding in‑hospital and post‑hospital minor‑complications. Percutaneous (pEVAR) and cutdown (cEVAR) techniques for femoral vessel access for T/EVAR were compared regarding their minor complications. The basic population of this retrospective cohort study consisted of 44 percutaneous and 215 cutdown accesses for endovascular aortic repair (T/EVAR‑procedure) conducted between August 2008 and October 2019. The primary outcome consisted of conservatively treatable minor complications until hospital discharge and during follow up. Secondary outcomes comprised postoperative pain and complications requiring invasive treatment. Minor complications were observed in 11.4% (pEVAR) vs. 9% (cEVAR) of cases throughout index hospital stay and 10 vs. 13.7% during follow‑up. No significant differences were noticed regarding overall complication rate between pEVAR and cEVAR. Only bleedings treatable through compression occurred significantly more often in the pEVAR‑group (6.8 vs. 0.5%; P=0.02). In conclusions, the percutaneous technique represents a safe and quickly executable alternative to cutdown access. A significant difference in overall minor complications could not be observed. In both techniques, complications may occur even months after surgery. In order to demonstrate the superiority of the percutaneous technique compared with cutdown access, possible predictors for the use of the percutaneous technique should be defined in the future.

Related Articles