OBJECTIVES: The development of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as an alternative to open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has led to an increasing number of patients being treated by this less-invasive technique. It was anticipated that EVAR would reduce the operative mortality and morbidity compared with open repair. This study examined the initial 10-year experience in one center when both techniques were available to determine if there were advantages to one technique or the other, putting the results into the perspective of routine clinical care of patients with infrarenal AAA. METHODS: From June 1996 to May 2005, 677 patients underwent elective repair of their infrarenal AAA, of which 417 were treated with open repair and 260 by EVAR. Demographic and aneurysm-specific data, comorbidities, operative morbidity, mortality, and late outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: Open repair patients were 2 years younger (71 vs 74 years, P < .001), had larger aneurysms (6.01 +/- 1.38 cm vs 5.45 +/- 0.99 cm, P < .001), greater familial predisposition, a higher incidence of current smokers, and a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than the EVAR group. There were no differences in renal function, hypertension, coronary artery disease, or heart failure between the two groups. Overall operative mortality was 3.1%; operative mortality per group was 3.5% for open and 2.7% for EVAR (P = .627). Procedure-related outcomes showed significant differences in operative blood loss and length of hospital stay in favor of EVAR, and 95% of the EVAR patients were discharged home vs 83% in the open repair group (P < .001). A Kaplan-Meier log-rank analysis showed no difference in early or long-term survival between open repair and EVAR (P = .20), but did show a difference in mid-term (3-year) survival favoring open repair (P < .002). Survival analysis by age (<70 and > or =70 years) showed no difference between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Open repair and EVAR are both performed safely in patients treated for elective infrarenal AAA. EVAR has the perioperative advantages of reduced blood loss, reduced length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, and increased number of patients discharged to home. The mid-term survival advantage of open repair has been observed in other reports and deserves further study.
OBJECTIVES: The development of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as an alternative to open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has led to an increasing number of patients being treated by this less-invasive technique. It was anticipated that EVAR would reduce the operative mortality and morbidity compared with open repair. This study examined the initial 10-year experience in one center when both techniques were available to determine if there were advantages to one technique or the other, putting the results into the perspective of routine clinical care of patients with infrarenal AAA. METHODS: From June 1996 to May 2005, 677 patients underwent elective repair of their infrarenal AAA, of which 417 were treated with open repair and 260 by EVAR. Demographic and aneurysm-specific data, comorbidities, operative morbidity, mortality, and late outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: Open repair patients were 2 years younger (71 vs 74 years, P < .001), had larger aneurysms (6.01 +/- 1.38 cm vs 5.45 +/- 0.99 cm, P < .001), greater familial predisposition, a higher incidence of current smokers, and a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than the EVAR group. There were no differences in renal function, hypertension, coronary artery disease, or heart failure between the two groups. Overall operative mortality was 3.1%; operative mortality per group was 3.5% for open and 2.7% for EVAR (P = .627). Procedure-related outcomes showed significant differences in operative blood loss and length of hospital stay in favor of EVAR, and 95% of the EVAR patients were discharged home vs 83% in the open repair group (P < .001). A Kaplan-Meier log-rank analysis showed no difference in early or long-term survival between open repair and EVAR (P = .20), but did show a difference in mid-term (3-year) survival favoring open repair (P < .002). Survival analysis by age (<70 and > or =70 years) showed no difference between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Open repair and EVAR are both performed safely in patients treated for elective infrarenal AAA. EVAR has the perioperative advantages of reduced blood loss, reduced length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, and increased number of patients discharged to home. The mid-term survival advantage of open repair has been observed in other reports and deserves further study.
Authors: Tim K Timmers; Joost A van Herwaarden; Gert-Jan de Borst; Frans L Moll; Luke P H Leenen Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Tomasz Synowiec; Paweł Chęciński; Przemysław Samolewski; Wojciech Zieliński; Daniel Konik-Piński; Angelika Kuczmarska Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 1.195