Zhu Chenmou, Zhao Jichun, Yuan Ding, Huang Bin, Yang Yi, Ma Yukui, Xiong Fei
West China Medical School of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Department of Vascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 May;57:75-82. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.08.088. Epub 2018 Nov 26.
This study aims to reveal the experience with endovascular and surgical management of intact splenic artery aneurysms in our single center.
Between January 2011 and June 2017, 42 patients with intact splenic artery aneurysm were enrolled in this study. Twenty patients undergoing surgical intervention were classified as the surgical group, and 22 patients who received endovascular repair were categorized as the endovascular group. Demographic data, preoperative comorbidities, and anatomical characteristics of aneurysms were collected and analyzed. Details of interventions, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up results were evaluated and compared between the 2 groups.
Forty-two patients with a mean age of 53.4 ± 11.6 years were enrolled in this study, and 44 aneurysms were repaired. Thirty-nine (92.9%) patients were asymptomatic, and 3 (7.1%) patients were symptomatic. The diameter of splenic artery aneurysms was 3.3 ± 1.6 cm, and the shape was mostly saccular. In the surgical group, the common methods used were splenic artery aneurysm resection (9 patients), followed by splenic artery aneurysms resection and splenectomy (6 patients), splenic artery aneurysm resection and arterial reconstruction with end-to-end anastomosis (3 patients), and laparoscopic splenic artery aneurysm resection coexisting with splenectomy (2 patients). In the endovascular group, the exclusive means was embolization with coils. The technical success rates in both open repair and endovascular repair were 100%. The 30-day mortality was nil, and no severe complication was found in the early time except that 1 patient suffered multiple splenic abscess in the endovascular group after embolization. Endovascular repair had significantly shorter surgery time (82.5 ± 27.6 vs 191.9 ± 62.7 min, P < 0.001) and hospital stay (5.6 ± 3.1 vs 10.8 ± 5.2 days, P < 0.001) compared with open repair. The median follow-up period in this study was 34.5 (interquartile range 16.8-60.8) months. Two sac reperfusions were detected during the follow-up in the endovascular group, and patients needed new embolization. No late deaths were found in the follow-up period, and the freedom from reintervention in the endovascular group at 1 and 3 years postoperatively was 95.5% and 82.4%, respectively. In addition, the freedom from reintervention in the surgical group at both 1 year and 3 years postoperatively were 100%. No significant differences were observed in late survival and reintervention between open repair and endovascular repair.
Open repair and endovascular repair were equally feasible, safe, and effective for intact splenic artery aneurysm. Endovascular repair is less invasive accompanied with an obvious decrease in surgery time and rapid recovery with a short hospital time.
本研究旨在揭示我们单中心对完整脾动脉瘤进行血管内治疗和手术治疗的经验。
2011年1月至2017年6月,42例完整脾动脉瘤患者纳入本研究。20例行手术干预的患者分为手术组,22例接受血管内修复的患者分为血管内组。收集并分析人口统计学数据、术前合并症和动脉瘤的解剖特征。评估并比较两组的干预细节、围手术期结果和随访结果。
本研究纳入42例平均年龄为53.4±11.6岁的患者,共修复44个动脉瘤。39例(92.9%)患者无症状,3例(7.1%)患者有症状。脾动脉瘤直径为3.3±1.6cm,形态多为囊状。手术组常用的方法是脾动脉瘤切除术(9例),其次是脾动脉瘤切除术加脾切除术(6例)、脾动脉瘤切除术加端端吻合动脉重建术(3例)以及腹腔镜脾动脉瘤切除术加脾切除术(2例)。血管内组唯一的方法是弹簧圈栓塞。开放修复和血管内修复的技术成功率均为100%。30天死亡率为零,早期未发现严重并发症,除血管内组1例患者栓塞后发生多发性脾脓肿。与开放修复相比,血管内修复的手术时间(82.5±27.6 vs 191.9±62.7分钟,P<0.001)和住院时间(5.6±3.1 vs 10.8±5.2天,P<0.00)明显缩短。本研究的中位随访期为34.5(四分位间距16.8 - 60.8)个月。血管内组随访期间检测到2例瘤囊再灌注,患者需要再次栓塞。随访期间未发现晚期死亡病例,血管内组术后1年和3年无需再次干预的比例分别为95.5%和82.4%。此外,手术组术后1年和3年无需再次干预的比例均为100%。开放修复和血管内修复在晚期生存率和再次干预方面未观察到显著差异。
开放修复和血管内修复对完整脾动脉瘤同样可行、安全且有效。血管内修复侵入性较小,手术时间明显缩短,恢复快,住院时间短。