Saltzberg Stephanie S, Maldonado Thomas S, Lamparello Patrick J, Cayne Neal S, Nalbandian Matthew M, Rosen Robert J, Jacobowitz Glenn R, Adelman Mark A, Gagne Paul J, Riles Thomas S, Rockman Caron B
Division of Vascular Surgery, New York University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2005 Jul;19(4):507-15. doi: 10.1007/s10016-005-4725-3.
Endovascular intervention can provide an alternative method of treatment for visceral artery aneurysms. We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with visceral artery aneurysms at a single university medical center from 1990 to 2003, focusing on the outcome of endovascular therapy. Sixty-five patients with visceral artery aneurysms were identified: 39 splenic (SAA), 13 renal, seven celiac, three superior mesenteric (SMA), and three hepatic. Eleven patients (16.9%) had symptoms attributable to their aneurysms, which included a total of four ruptures (6.2%): three splenic and one hepatic. Management consisted of 18 (27.7%) endovascular interventions, nine (13.9%) open surgical repairs, and 38 (58.5%) observations. Mean aneurysm diameter for patients treated expectantly was significantly less than for those who underwent intervention (p = 0.001). Endovascular interventions included 15 (83.3%) embolizations (11 SAA, three renal, one hepatic) and three (16.7%) stent grafts (two SMA, one renal). The initial technical success rate of the endovascular procedures was 94.4% (17/18). However, there were four patients (22.2%) with major endovascular procedure-related complications: one late recurrence requiring open surgical repair, two large symptomatic splenic infarcts, and one episode of severe pancreatitis. These four patients had distal splenic artery aneurysms at or adjacent to the splenic hilum. There were no endovascular procedure-related deaths. Reasons for performing open surgical repair included three SAA ruptures diagnosed at laparotomy and complex anatomy not amenable to endovascular intervention (six patients). One surgical patient had a postoperative small bowel obstruction treated nonoperatively; and there was one perioperative death in a patient operated on emergently for rupture. Endovascular management of visceral artery aneurysms is a reasonable alternative to open surgical repair in carefully selected patients. Individual anatomic considerations play an important role in determining the best treatment strategy if intervention is warranted. However, four of 11 (36.4%) patients with distal splenic artery aneurysms treated with endovascular embolization developed major complications. Based on our experience, traditional surgical treatment of SAA with repair or ligation and concomitant splenectomy when necessary may be preferred in these cases.
血管内介入可为内脏动脉瘤提供一种替代治疗方法。我们对1990年至2003年在一家大学医学中心的所有内脏动脉瘤患者进行了回顾性研究,重点关注血管内治疗的结果。共确定了65例内脏动脉瘤患者:39例脾动脉瘤(SAA)、13例肾动脉瘤、7例腹腔干动脉瘤、3例肠系膜上动脉(SMA)动脉瘤和3例肝动脉瘤。11例患者(16.9%)有与动脉瘤相关的症状,其中共有4例破裂(6.2%):3例脾动脉瘤破裂和1例肝动脉瘤破裂。治疗方式包括18例(27.7%)血管内介入、9例(13.9%)开放手术修复和38例(58.5%)观察。保守治疗患者的平均动脉瘤直径显著小于接受介入治疗的患者(p = 0.001)。血管内介入包括15例(83.3%)栓塞术(11例SAA、3例肾动脉瘤、1例肝动脉瘤)和3例(16.7%)支架植入术(2例SMA、1例肾动脉瘤)。血管内手术的初始技术成功率为94.4%(17/18)。然而,有4例患者(22.2%)出现了与血管内手术相关的严重并发症:1例晚期复发需要开放手术修复,2例出现有症状的巨大脾梗死,1例发生严重胰腺炎。这4例患者的脾动脉远端动脉瘤位于脾门处或其附近。没有与血管内手术相关的死亡病例。进行开放手术修复的原因包括3例在剖腹手术中诊断出的SAA破裂以及解剖结构复杂不适于血管内介入的患者(6例)。1例手术患者术后出现非手术治疗的小肠梗阻;1例因破裂而急诊手术的患者在围手术期死亡。对于经过精心挑选的患者,内脏动脉瘤的血管内治疗是开放手术修复的合理替代方法。如果需要进行干预,个体解剖因素在确定最佳治疗策略中起着重要作用。然而,11例接受血管内栓塞治疗的脾动脉远端动脉瘤患者中有4例(36.4%)出现了严重并发症。根据我们的经验,在这些情况下,对于SAA采用修复或结扎并在必要时同时行脾切除术的传统手术治疗可能更为可取。