The purpose of this study is to compare the rate and severity of complications associated with CSFD placement either with or without fluoroscopic guidance.

Patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair are at risk of suffering devastating spinal cord injury (SCI), rendering them with a permanent neurologic deficit, paraplegia, or paraparesis. Despite huge success over the last several decades with the introduction of innovative protective maneuvers, such as the use of cerebrospinal fluid drains (CSFDs), the rate of these complications remains around 5%. Spinal cord perfusion can be compromised during aortic surgery and the intrathecal decompression achieved by CSFDs functions to increase the pressure gradient of blood flow, thereby optimizing spinal cord perfusion during aortic surgery. There are two methods commonly used to place cerebrospinal fluid drains: blind placement and with fluoroscopic guidance. Prior to 2016, CSFDs at UNC hospital were primarily placed without image guidance. However, hospital policy then transitioned to having all CSFDs placed using fluoroscopic guidance. To the investigators' knowledge, there are no reported studies directly comparing clinical outcomes of CSFDs placed by these methods. Given the increased cost and radiation exposure associated with the use of fluoroscopy, a better understanding of comparative outcomes has great potential clinical value. Therefore, the investigators propose to compare the rate and severity of complications associated with CSFD placement either with or without fluoroscopic guidance.

Inclusion Criteria:

• CSF drain placed from 2010 to present prior to undergoing aortic surgery

Exclusion Criteria:

• Patients under 18 years of age
• Patients undergoing emergency procedures

UNC Hospital System Patients

Deidentified individual data that supports the results will be shared beginning 9 to 36 months following publication provided the investigator who proposes to use the data has approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Independent Ethics Committee (IEC), or Research Ethics Board (REB), as applicable, and executes a data use/sharing agreement with UNC.

Data will be shared beginning 9 to 36 months following publication.

Data will be shared provided the investigator who proposes to use the data has approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Independent Ethics Committee (IEC), or Research Ethics Board (REB), as applicable, and executes a data use/sharing agreement with UNC.