We were interested to read this paper by Megaly et al. collating detailed information about complications with the MANTA vascular closure device (VCD; Teleflex, PA, USA) This also highlights the need to maintain data on VCD deployment failures, as more enter the market, though a valid point is made about selection bias around voluntary data entry into registries. Interestingly- and this seems to be a trend with the related literature around this VCD in general- most of the results emerge following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), with only 23 deployments around endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), as the authors acknowledge. This of course indicates the earlier uptake of the device in cardiology as compared to vascular surgery, though there is more related to the latter in other studies , and will continue to emerge with more device uptake amongst vascular surgeons, who still predominantly use suture-mediated closure devices (SMCDs) in this respect. This has become a default VCD (for AC) on an all-comers basis for large-bore punctures, and is currently undergoing prospective audit, approaching 100 deployments for analysis soon. Whilst prospectively auditing the first 50 deployments over August 2020–May 2021 to assess early failure and also early follow-up features following at endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR; n = 45), thoracic EVAR (TEVAR; n = 4) and popliteal EVAR (PEVAR; n = 1). A mix of VCDs were deployed - 18F (n = 24/48%), and 14F (n = 26/52%) – and the immediate deployment failure rate was noted to be 2% (pseudoaneurysm due to subcutaneous deployment, n = 1; failed haemostasis was treated with overnight pressure dressings and the pseudoaneurysm, kept under observation as small, was noted to spontaneously resolve at 1 year follow-up), with no vessel stenosis or occlusion noted on follow-up scans at median 4 (IQR2) weeks (43 groins available for assessment). The authors make a valid point about recognising problems, but also make valid points about ‘prevention being better than cure’ in any case. To that extent, we undertake all femoral arterial punctures under ultrasound guidance, and this has the benefit of avoiding being too high ( i.e. near the inguinal ligament as the authors indicate) or too low (which allows open easy single vessel control if open conversion is needed for failed deployments, and avoids inappropriate puncture of branch vessels like the deep femoral artery). We do not believe calcification or obesity are an issue if deployments are made with due care, and certainly have noted this with other plug-based VCDs .