Bush Ruth L, Najibi Sasan, Lin Peter H, Lumsden Alan B, Dodson Thomas F, Salam Atef A, Smith Robert B, Chaikof Elliot L, Weiss Victor L
Joseph B. Whitehead Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine and the Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA.
Am Surg. 2002 Jan;68(1):57-60; discussion 60-1.
The last decade has represented a time of fundamental change in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Potentially, vascular surgeons will either acquire catheter-based skills or relinquish the care for many patients with infrarenal AAA. We investigated AAA referral patterns and method of AAA repair after the establishment of an endovascular AAA program at our institution. We conducted a retrospective review of elective AAA repairs after the initiation of an endovascular AAA program in April 1994. Six vascular surgeons performed all procedures with a clear distinction between the surgeons (n=3) who performed traditional AAA repair only and those (n=3) who managed AAAs by means of either endovascular or traditional treatment. From April 1994 through December 2000, 740 elective AAA repairs were performed. During this time the mean number of AAA repairs has been 106/year ranging from 75 to 155/year. More notable however is the steady increase in the percentage of endovascular AAA repairs from 6 per cent of all AAA repairs in 1994 to 61 per cent in 2000. During this time traditional surgeons have experienced a plateau in total AAA repairs performed per year with their number of open repairs decreasing by 36 per cent. At the same time endovascular surgeons have seen a progressive rise in total AAA cases including an increase of 200 per cent in open repairs and of 1367 per cent in endovascular repairs. Our vascular surgeons who repair AAA utilizing both endovascular and open techniques have experienced an increase in aneurysm referrals since the advent of an endovascular AAA program. Those who have not adopted endovascular skills have seen a decline in their aneurysm practice. The larger question about whether or not to embrace new technology before the availability of long-term follow-up remains unanswered.
过去十年是腹主动脉瘤(AAA)治疗发生根本性变革的时期。血管外科医生可能要么掌握基于导管的技能,要么放弃对许多肾下腹主动脉瘤患者的治疗。我们在本机构建立血管内腹主动脉瘤治疗项目后,调查了腹主动脉瘤的转诊模式及腹主动脉瘤修复方法。我们对1994年4月启动血管内腹主动脉瘤治疗项目后的择期腹主动脉瘤修复进行了回顾性研究。六位血管外科医生实施了所有手术,明确区分了仅进行传统腹主动脉瘤修复的外科医生(n = 3)和采用血管内或传统治疗方式处理腹主动脉瘤的外科医生(n = 3)。从1994年4月至2000年12月,共进行了740例择期腹主动脉瘤修复手术。在此期间,腹主动脉瘤修复手术的年均数量为106例/年,范围在75至155例/年之间。然而,更值得注意的是,血管内腹主动脉瘤修复手术的比例从1994年占所有腹主动脉瘤修复手术的6%稳步上升至2000年的61%。在此期间,传统外科医生每年进行的腹主动脉瘤修复手术总数处于平稳状态,其开放修复手术数量减少了36%。与此同时,血管内外科医生处理的腹主动脉瘤病例总数呈逐步上升趋势,其中开放修复手术增加了200%,血管内修复手术增加了1367%。自血管内腹主动脉瘤治疗项目开展以来,我们采用血管内和开放技术修复腹主动脉瘤的血管外科医生所接收的动脉瘤转诊病例有所增加。而那些未掌握血管内技术的医生,其动脉瘤治疗业务量则有所下降。在缺乏长期随访数据的情况下,是否采用新技术这一更大的问题仍未得到解答。