OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of intestinal manipulation and mesenteric traction on gastro-intestinal function and postoperative recovery in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. METHODS:Thirty-five patients undergoing AAA repair were randomised into 3 groups. Group I (n = 11) had repair via retroperitoneal approach while Group II (n = 12) and Group III (n = 12) were repaired via transperitoneal approach with bowel packed within the peritoneal cavity or exteriorised in a bowel bag respectively. Gastric emptying was measured pre-operatively (day 0), day 1 and day 3 using paracetamol absorption test (PAT) and area under curve (P(AUC)) was calculated. Intestinal permeability was measured using the Lactulose-Mannitol test. RESULTS:Aneurysm size, operation time and PAT (on day 0 and day 3) were similar in the three groups. On day 1, the P(AUC) was significantly higher in Group I, when compared with Group II and Group III (P = .02). Resumption of diet was also significantly earlier in Group I as compared to Group II and Group III. The intestinal permeability was significantly increased in Group II and Group III at day 1 when compared with day 0, with no significant increase in Group I. Retroperitoneal repair was also associated with significantly shorter intensive care unit (P = .04) and hospital stay (P = .047), when compared with the combined transperitoneal repair group (Group II and III). CONCLUSION: Retroperitoneal AAA repair minimises intestinal dysfunction and may lead to quicker patient recovery when compared to transperitoneal repair.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of intestinal manipulation and mesenteric traction on gastro-intestinal function and postoperative recovery in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. METHODS: Thirty-five patients undergoing AAA repair were randomised into 3 groups. Group I (n = 11) had repair via retroperitoneal approach while Group II (n = 12) and Group III (n = 12) were repaired via transperitoneal approach with bowel packed within the peritoneal cavity or exteriorised in a bowel bag respectively. Gastric emptying was measured pre-operatively (day 0), day 1 and day 3 using paracetamol absorption test (PAT) and area under curve (P(AUC)) was calculated. Intestinal permeability was measured using the Lactulose-Mannitol test. RESULTS:Aneurysm size, operation time and PAT (on day 0 and day 3) were similar in the three groups. On day 1, the P(AUC) was significantly higher in Group I, when compared with Group II and Group III (P = .02). Resumption of diet was also significantly earlier in Group I as compared to Group II and Group III. The intestinal permeability was significantly increased in Group II and Group III at day 1 when compared with day 0, with no significant increase in Group I. Retroperitoneal repair was also associated with significantly shorter intensive care unit (P = .04) and hospital stay (P = .047), when compared with the combined transperitoneal repair group (Group II and III). CONCLUSION: Retroperitoneal AAA repair minimises intestinal dysfunction and may lead to quicker patient recovery when compared to transperitoneal repair.
Authors: Dominique B Buck; Klaas H J Ultee; Sara L Zettervall; Pete A Soden; Jeremy Darling; Mark Wyers; Joost A van Herwaarden; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 4.268