BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic splanchnic syndrome remains controversial. In the past 10 years, endovascular repair (ER) has replaced open repair (OR) to some extent. This evidence summary reviews the available evidence for ER or OR of chronic splanchnic syndrome. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE database was performed to identify all studies that evaluated treatment of chronic splanchnic syndrome between 1988 and 2009. RESULTS: The best available evidence consists of prospectively accumulated but retrospectively analyzed data with a high risk for confounding. Only a few of these studies incorporated functional tests to assess splanchnic ischemia before or after treatment. ER has the advantage of low short-term morbidity but the disadvantage of decreased long-term primary patency compared with OR. ER and OR have similar rates of secondary patency, although the reintervention rate after ER is higher. CONCLUSION: ER appears to be preferential in the treatment of elderly patients and in patients with comorbidity, severe cachexia, or hostile abdomen. Long-term results after OR are excellent. OR can still be proposed as the preferred option for relatively young and fit patients. Copyright (c) 2010 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic splanchnic syndrome remains controversial. In the past 10 years, endovascular repair (ER) has replaced open repair (OR) to some extent. This evidence summary reviews the available evidence for ER or OR of chronic splanchnic syndrome. METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE database was performed to identify all studies that evaluated treatment of chronic splanchnic syndrome between 1988 and 2009. RESULTS: The best available evidence consists of prospectively accumulated but retrospectively analyzed data with a high risk for confounding. Only a few of these studies incorporated functional tests to assess splanchnic ischemia before or after treatment. ER has the advantage of low short-term morbidity but the disadvantage of decreased long-term primary patency compared with OR. ER and OR have similar rates of secondary patency, although the reintervention rate after ER is higher. CONCLUSION: ER appears to be preferential in the treatment of elderly patients and in patients with comorbidity, severe cachexia, or hostile abdomen. Long-term results after OR are excellent. OR can still be proposed as the preferred option for relatively young and fit patients. Copyright (c) 2010 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Gustavo S Oderich; Tiziano Tallarita; Peter Gloviczki; Audra A Duncan; Manju Kalra; Sanjay Misra; Stephen Cha; Thomas C Bower Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Tiziano Tallarita; Gustavo S Oderich; Peter Gloviczki; Audra A Duncan; Manju Kalra; Stephen Cha; Sanjay Misra; Thomas C Bower Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 4.268