Suppr超能文献

微创主动脉手术。

Minimal incision aortic surgery.

作者信息

Turnipseed W D, Carr S C, Tefera G, Acher C W, Hoch J R

机构信息

University of Wisconsin Medical School, Department of Surgery, Section of Vascular Surgery, Madison WI, 53792, USA.

出版信息

J Vasc Surg. 2001 Jul;34(1):47-53. doi: 10.1067/mva.2001.115809.

Abstract

PURPOSE

In this study we evaluated the clinical and economic impact of minimal incision aortic surgery (MIAS) for treatment of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD).

METHOD

Fifty patients with either AAA (34) or AIOD (16), prospectively treated with the MIAS technique, were compared with 50 patients (40 AAA and 10 AIOD) treated in the same time period with long midline incision and extracavitary small bowel retraction. MIAS was also compared with a cohort of 32 patients with AAA treated by means of endoaortic stent-grafts. Outcomes and cost (based on metric mean length of stay) were compared for the open and endoaortic techniques.

RESULTS

Patients who experienced no perioperative complications after the MIAS or endovascular repair technique had shorter hospital stays than patients with uncomplicated aortic repairs performed with a traditional long midline abdominal incision (3 days vs 3 days vs. 7.2 days). Hospital stay was also significantly shorter for the less invasive procedures when perioperative complications were included (4.8 days vs. 4.3 days vs 9.3 days). The MIAS and endovascular aortic repair groups had a shorter intensive care unit stay (< or = 1.0 day) and a quicker return to general dietary feeding (2.5 days) than patients treated with standard open repair (1.8 days, 4.7 days). The overall morbidity for the MIAS technique (14%) and endovascular technique (21%) was not significantly different from standard open repair (24%). The mortality rate for the different treatment groups was equivalent (MIAS, 2%; endovascular repair, 3%; standard repair, 2%). The MIAS was more cost-efficient than standard open repair ($12,585 vs $18,445) because of shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay and was more cost-efficient than endoaortic repair ($12,585 vs $32,040) because of reduced, direct intraoperative costs.

CONCLUSIONS

MIAS is as safe as standard open or endovascular repair in the treatment of AAA and AIOD. MIAS is more cost-efficient than standard open or endoaortic repair.

摘要

目的

在本研究中,我们评估了微创主动脉手术(MIAS)治疗腹主动脉瘤(AAA)和主-髂动脉闭塞性疾病(AIOD)患者的临床及经济影响。

方法

将50例接受MIAS技术前瞻性治疗的AAA患者(34例)或AIOD患者(16例),与同期采用长正中切口和腔外小肠牵开术治疗的50例患者(40例AAA和10例AIOD)进行比较。MIAS还与一组32例采用主动脉内支架移植物治疗的AAA患者进行比较。比较开放手术和主动脉内技术的治疗结果及费用(基于平均住院时间)。

结果

MIAS或血管腔内修复技术术后无围手术期并发症的患者,其住院时间比采用传统长正中腹部切口进行的无并发症主动脉修复患者短(3天对3天对7.2天)。当纳入围手术期并发症时,侵入性较小的手术住院时间也显著缩短(4.8天对4.3天对9.3天)。与接受标准开放修复的患者(1.8天,4.7天)相比,MIAS和血管腔内主动脉修复组的重症监护病房住院时间更短(≤1.0天),恢复正常饮食更快(2.5天)。MIAS技术(14%)和血管腔内技术(21%)的总体发病率与标准开放修复(24%)无显著差异。不同治疗组的死亡率相当(MIAS,2%;血管腔内修复,3%;标准修复,2%)。由于重症监护病房和住院时间较短,MIAS比标准开放修复更具成本效益(12,585美元对18,445美元),并且由于直接术中成本降低,比主动脉内修复更具成本效益(12,585美元对32,040美元)。

结论

在治疗AAA和AIOD方面,MIAS与标准开放或血管腔内修复一样安全。MIAS比标准开放或主动脉内修复更具成本效益。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验