| Autor: |
Komori, Kimihiro, Okazaki, Jin, Kawasaki, Katsumi, Kuma, Sosei, Eguchi, Daihiko, Mawatari, Kyotaro, Itoh, Hiroyuki, Onohara, Toshihiro, Sugimachi, Keizo |
| Zdroj: |
International Journal of Angiology (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.); Sep1997, Vol. 6 Issue 4, p230-233, 4p |
| Abstrakt: |
Although the standard surgical approach for repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has been the transperitoneal approach, several reports have suggested the usefulness of retroperitoneal aortic reconstruction. However, the superiority of the retroperitoneal compared with transperitoneal approach is still controversial. To compare the efficacy of the retroperitoneal with that of the transperitoneal approach in elective AAA resection, 19 consecutive cases with previous laparotomies were randomly reviewed. From January 1990 through December 1992, 94 consecutive patients underwent elective reconstructions of an infrarenal AAA. Among them, 75 patients had had no previous surgery of any kind. In all of them, the transperitoneal approach was used (Group I). Nineteen other patients who had various laparotomies were randomly divided into two groups. The transperitoneal approach was used in 10 patients (Group II), and the retroperitoneal approach was used in 9 patients (Group III). Thus, the patients were separated into three groups and the intra- and postoperative parameters were compared. Surgical data including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and aortic cross-clamping time did not differ significantly between the transperitoneal approach in the patients without laparotomy (Group I) and the retroperitoneal approach (Group II). In addition, the postoperative recovery including the initiation of alimentation and postoperative hospitalization also did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, there was a significant difference in the operative time and the blood loss between the retroperitoneal approach (Group II) and transperitoneal approach (Group III) in the patients with previous laparotomy. In addition, the postoperative parameters including the initiation of oral intake was sooner and hospitalization was significantly shorter in the retroperitoneal group (Group II) than in the transperitoneal group (Group III) with previous laparotomy. There was no incidence of postoperative adhesive ileus in the patients with the retroperitoneal approach (Group II). The results demonstrated no important advantage for the retroperitoneal approach compared with routine transperitoneal approach in the patients without previous laparotomy. However, in the patients with previous laparotomies, the retroperitoneal approach is a preferable alternative to the transperitoneal route. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink