Suppr超能文献

用于修复肾下腹主动脉瘤的小型剖腹术。

Mini-laparotomy for repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm.

作者信息

Laohapensang K, Rerkasem K, Chotirosniramit N

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Chiang Mai University Hospital, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

出版信息

Int Angiol. 2005 Sep;24(3):238-44.

Abstract

AIM

In this study, we evaluated the surgical results of minimal incision aortic surgery (MIAS) compared with the transabdominal approach (TPA) and the retroperitoneal approach (RPA) to repair non-ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA).

METHODS

Three different surgical techniques were studied prospectively in 72 consecutive patients with non-ruptured infrarenal AAA. These patients were randomized into 3 groups of 24 patients each. Group I comprised of patients who underwent MIAS repair. They were compared with group II patients, who underwent the traditionally long midline TPA, and group III patients, who underwent the left RPA to repair non-ruptured infrarenal AAA. All surgery was performed between January 2000 and December 2004. Demographic characteristics, including age, sex, body weight, aneurysm size, previous abdominal operations and comorbid factors of the three groups studied, were compared using the Fischer's exact test. Parameters including operative time, intraoperative fluid administration, and transfusion requirements were compared using the 2-tailed Student t test. Length of stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), time to resumption of regular dietary feeding, and hospital length of stay were recorded and compared using the Wilcox rank sum test. The incidence of 30 day postoperative complications and mortality were compared between the three groups. All 72 patients who entered this study had informed consent.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between group I (MIAS), group II (TPA), and group III (RPA) with regard to age, sex distribution, aneurysm size, or body weight. There was male sex prevalence in all three groups. Surgical exposure of the common femoral arteries was more commonly required in group III (RPA) than in the other groups. Although the length of incision tended to be longer in group III (RPA) than in group II (TPA) and I (MIAS), there was no significant difference in intraoperative time, or aortic cross-clamped time among the three groups. There was a significant difference in the need for intraoperative fluid, the most being in group II (TPA) and the least in group I (MIAS). There was significantly less blood loss in group I (MIAS), as compared with the other 2 groups, but intraoperative blood transfusion for all groups was not significantly different. ICU stay, return to general dietary feeding, and hospital length of stay for group I (MIAS) and III (RPA) were significantly lower than in group II (TPA), which had a higher incidence of postoperative ileus.

CONCLUSIONS

MIAS is as safe as retroperitoneal repair and standard transabdominal repair in the treatment of non-ruptured infrarenal AAA, and also more costefficient than retroperitoneal and standard transabdominal repair.

摘要

目的

在本研究中,我们评估了微创主动脉手术(MIAS)与经腹入路(TPA)和腹膜后入路(RPA)修复非破裂性肾下腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的手术效果。

方法

对72例连续性非破裂性肾下腹主动脉瘤患者前瞻性地研究了三种不同的手术技术。这些患者被随机分为3组,每组24例。第一组由接受MIAS修复的患者组成。将他们与接受传统长正中切口TPA的第二组患者以及接受左侧RPA修复非破裂性肾下腹主动脉瘤的第三组患者进行比较。所有手术均在2000年1月至2004年12月期间进行。使用Fisher精确检验比较研究的三组患者的人口统计学特征,包括年龄、性别、体重、动脉瘤大小、既往腹部手术史和合并症因素。使用双尾Student t检验比较包括手术时间、术中液体输注量和输血需求等参数。记录并使用Wilcox秩和检验比较重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间、恢复正常饮食喂养的时间以及住院时间。比较三组患者术后30天并发症发生率和死亡率。所有进入本研究的72例患者均签署了知情同意书。

结果

第一组(MIAS)、第二组(TPA)和第三组(RPA)在年龄、性别分布、动脉瘤大小或体重方面无显著差异。三组均以男性居多。第三组(RPA)比其他组更常需要暴露股总动脉。虽然第三组(RPA)的切口长度往往比第二组(TPA)和第一组(MIAS)更长,但三组之间的术中时间或主动脉阻断时间无显著差异。术中液体需求存在显著差异,第二组(TPA)最多,第一组(MIAS)最少。与其他两组相比,第一组(MIAS)的失血量显著更少,但三组的术中输血情况无显著差异。第一组(MIAS)和第三组(RPA)的ICU住院时间、恢复普通饮食喂养时间和住院时间均显著低于第二组(TPA),第二组术后肠梗阻发生率更高。

结论

在治疗非破裂性肾下腹主动脉瘤方面,MIAS与腹膜后修复和标准经腹修复一样安全,并且比腹膜后和标准经腹修复更具成本效益。

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