INTRODUCTION: Endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm has become the standard of care due to a lower 30-day mortality, a lower morbidity, shorter hospital stay and a quicker recovery. The role of open repair (OR) and to whom this type of operation should be offered is subject to discussion. OBJECTIVE: To present a single center experience on the repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, comparing the results of open and endovascular repairs. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional observational study including 286 patients submitted to OR and 91 patients submitted to EVAR. The mean follow-up for the OR group was 66 months and for the EVAR group was 39 months. RESULTS: The overall mortality was 11.89% for OR and 7.69% for EVAR (P=0.263), EVAR presented a death relative risk of 0.647. It was also found a lower intraoperative bleeding for EVAR (OR=1417.48±1180.42 mL versus EVAR=597.80±488.81 mL, P<0.0002) and a shorter operative time for endovascular repair (OR=4.40±1.08 hours versus EVAR=3.58±1.26 hours,P<0.003). The postoperative complications presented no statistical difference between groups (OR=29.03% versus EVAR=25.27%, P=0.35). CONCLUSION: EVAR presents a better short term outcome than OR in all classes of physiologic risk. In order to train future vascular surgeons on OR, only young and healthy patients, who carry a very low risk of adverse events, should be selected, aiming at the long term durability of the procedure.
INTRODUCTION: Endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm has become the standard of care due to a lower 30-day mortality, a lower morbidity, shorter hospital stay and a quicker recovery. The role of open repair (OR) and to whom this type of operation should be offered is subject to discussion. OBJECTIVE: To present a single center experience on the repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, comparing the results of open and endovascular repairs. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional observational study including 286 patients submitted to OR and 91 patients submitted to EVAR. The mean follow-up for the OR group was 66 months and for the EVAR group was 39 months. RESULTS: The overall mortality was 11.89% for OR and 7.69% for EVAR (P=0.263), EVAR presented a death relative risk of 0.647. It was also found a lower intraoperative bleeding for EVAR (OR=1417.48±1180.42 mL versus EVAR=597.80±488.81 mL, P<0.0002) and a shorter operative time for endovascular repair (OR=4.40±1.08 hours versus EVAR=3.58±1.26 hours,P<0.003). The postoperative complications presented no statistical difference between groups (OR=29.03% versus EVAR=25.27%, P=0.35). CONCLUSION: EVAR presents a better short term outcome than OR in all classes of physiologic risk. In order to train future vascular surgeons on OR, only young and healthy patients, who carry a very low risk of adverse events, should be selected, aiming at the long term durability of the procedure.
Authors: Teviah Sachs; Marc Schermerhorn; Frank Pomposelli; Philip Cotterill; James O'Malley; Bruce Landon Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2011-05-28 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Gosen Gabriel Koning; S R Vallabhneni; Corinne J Van Marrewijk; Lina J Leurs; Robert J F Laheij; Jacob Buth Journal: Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc Date: 2007 Jan-Mar
Authors: John Rose; Christopher Evans; Andrew Barleben; Dennis Bandyk; S Eric Wilson; David C Chang; John Lane Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Juliet Blakeslee-Carter; Zdenek Novak; John Axley; William F Gaillard; Graeme E McFarland; Benjamin J Pearce; Emily L Spangler; Marc A Passman; Adam W Beck Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 1.607