Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus endovascular repair in abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment.

Autor:	Berchiolli R; Vascular Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy., Tomei F; Vascular Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy., Marconi M; Vascular Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy. Electronic address: michemarconi@gmail.com., Mocellin DM; Vascular Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy., Morganti R; Section of Statistics, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy., Mari M; Vascular Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy., Adami D; Vascular Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy., Ferrari M; Vascular Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of vascular surgery [J Vasc Surg] 2019 Aug; Vol. 70 (2), pp. 478-484. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Feb 02.
DOI:	10.1016/j.jvs.2018.11.020
Abstrakt:	Objective: Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has shown promising initial results compared with traditional surgery, but its efficacy remains highly debated. The aim of this monocentric, retrospective study was to investigate differences in morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and HALS, in the medium- and long-term follow-up in a highly selected population. Methods: We treated 977 patients consecutively for nonurgent AAA from January 2006 to December 2013; among them, 615 (62.9%) underwent open surgery, 173 (17.7%) HALS, and 189 (19.3%) EVAR. For this study, only patients treated with HALS or EVAR were considered. A subsequent selection process was carried out to identify the patients with clinical characteristics and aneurysm morphology amenable to either of these treatments. The final study cohort included 229 patients; 92 (40.2%) underwent HALS and 137 (69.8%) received EVAR. The two populations were homogeneous for clinical and demographic characteristics. Results: The mean duration of follow-up was 57 ± 28 months (50 ± 24 months in the EVAR group and 67 ± 29 months in the HALS group; range, 2-110 months). No deaths and no statistically significant differences in severe complications or reinterventions were observed over the perioperative period (30 days). Length of stay was significantly shorter after EVAR, because the need for and length of stay in the intensive care unit were decreased. Three postoperative deaths (in-hospital mortality >30 days: HALS, 2.2%; EVAR, 0.7%; P = .7268) occurred owing to respiratory failure (two patients, one in each group) and multiorgan failure secondary to a bowel ischemia (one patient in the HALS group). Other deaths in the study population were not related to the procedure. In both groups, the major causes of death were cancer (24 cases [36.9%]), cardiovascular causes unrelated to AAA (16 [24.6%]), and chronic obstructive lung disease (10 [15.4%]). In the long-term follow-up period, there was a difference in the overall survival in favor of HALS when compared with EVAR (P = .011). Conclusions: This retrospective, single-center study shows that, within a population of similar clinical and anatomic characteristics, treatment of AAA with EVAR or HALS does not result in significant differences in early morbidity and mortality. EVAR presents significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, whereas HALS presents a lower aneurysm-related reintervention rate and lower perioperative cost. The strict patient selection in this trial, as is generally the case with AAA treatment, is likely the key to success for both of these techniques. (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu