OBJECTIVE: Retrograde open mesenteric stenting (ROMS) is an alternative to traditional bypass in patients who present with acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI). However, there is a paucity of data comparing outcomes of ROMS with other open surgical approaches. This study represents the largest single-institution experience with ROMS and aims to compare outcomes of ROMS with those of conventional mesenteric bypass. METHODS: All patients who presented with AMI from 2008 to 2019 and who were treated with either ROMS or mesenteric bypass were included in the study. Patient, procedure, and outcome variables were compared. Bypass and ROMS patients were compared using univariate statistics. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients who presented with AMI needing bypass were included in the study; 16 underwent mesenteric bypass, and 18 underwent ROMS. ROMS patients tended to be older than bypass patients and had higher rates of comorbidities. Bypass patients were more likely to have a history of chronic mesenteric symptoms (68.8% vs 27.8%; P = .019). Bypass procedures also took longer than ROMS procedures (302 vs 189 minutes; P < .01). The majority of ROMS procedures were not performed in a hybrid room (77.8%). Within 1 year, one stent thrombosed in a ROMS patient, requiring later mesenteric bypass. In the bypass group, one conduit thrombosed, ultimately resulting in perioperative death, and one bypass anastomosis stenosed, requiring angioplasty. Complication, unanticipated reintervention, and mortality rates were otherwise similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Complication, reintervention, and mortality rates after ROMS are similar to those of mesenteric bypass in the setting of AMI. Given similar postoperative outcomes and ability to perform these procedures in a conventional operating room but with significantly shorter operative times, ROMS should be considered a first-line option in acute situations when the operator is comfortable performing the procedure.
OBJECTIVE: Retrograde open mesenteric stenting (ROMS) is an alternative to traditional bypass in patients who present with acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI). However, there is a paucity of data comparing outcomes of ROMS with other open surgical approaches. This study represents the largest single-institution experience with ROMS and aims to compare outcomes of ROMS with those of conventional mesenteric bypass. METHODS: All patients who presented with AMI from 2008 to 2019 and who were treated with either ROMS or mesenteric bypass were included in the study. Patient, procedure, and outcome variables were compared. Bypass and ROMS patients were compared using univariate statistics. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients who presented with AMI needing bypass were included in the study; 16 underwent mesenteric bypass, and 18 underwent ROMS. ROMS patients tended to be older than bypass patients and had higher rates of comorbidities. Bypass patients were more likely to have a history of chronic mesenteric symptoms (68.8% vs 27.8%; P = .019). Bypass procedures also took longer than ROMS procedures (302 vs 189 minutes; P < .01). The majority of ROMS procedures were not performed in a hybrid room (77.8%). Within 1 year, one stent thrombosed in a ROMS patient, requiring later mesenteric bypass. In the bypass group, one conduit thrombosed, ultimately resulting in perioperative death, and one bypass anastomosis stenosed, requiring angioplasty. Complication, unanticipated reintervention, and mortality rates were otherwise similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Complication, reintervention, and mortality rates after ROMS are similar to those of mesenteric bypass in the setting of AMI. Given similar postoperative outcomes and ability to perform these procedures in a conventional operating room but with significantly shorter operative times, ROMS should be considered a first-line option in acute situations when the operator is comfortable performing the procedure.
Authors: Lillian M Tran; Elizabeth Andraska; Lindsey Haga; Natalie Sridharan; Rabih A Chaer; Mohammad H Eslami Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Elizabeth A Andraska; Lillian M Tran; Lindsey M Haga; Allison K Mak; Michael C Madigan; Michel S Makaroun; Mohammad H Eslami; Rabih A Chaer Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Khaled Alnahhal; Beau B Toskich; Samuel Nussbaum; Zhuo Li; Young Erben; Albert G Hakaim; Houssam Farres Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 1.337