Vascular Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Vascular Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Aug;70(2):478-484. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.11.020. Epub 2019 Feb 2.
Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has shown promising initial results compared with traditional surgery, but its efficacy remains highly debated. The aim of this monocentric, retrospective study was to investigate differences in morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and HALS, in the medium- and long-term follow-up in a highly selected population.
We treated 977 patients consecutively for nonurgent AAA from January 2006 to December 2013; among them, 615 (62.9%) underwent open surgery, 173 (17.7%) HALS, and 189 (19.3%) EVAR. For this study, only patients treated with HALS or EVAR were considered. A subsequent selection process was carried out to identify the patients with clinical characteristics and aneurysm morphology amenable to either of these treatments. The final study cohort included 229 patients; 92 (40.2%) underwent HALS and 137 (69.8%) received EVAR. The two populations were homogeneous for clinical and demographic characteristics.
The mean duration of follow-up was 57 ± 28 months (50 ± 24 months in the EVAR group and 67 ± 29 months in the HALS group; range, 2-110 months). No deaths and no statistically significant differences in severe complications or reinterventions were observed over the perioperative period (30 days). Length of stay was significantly shorter after EVAR, because the need for and length of stay in the intensive care unit were decreased. Three postoperative deaths (in-hospital mortality >30 days: HALS, 2.2%; EVAR, 0.7%; P = .7268) occurred owing to respiratory failure (two patients, one in each group) and multiorgan failure secondary to a bowel ischemia (one patient in the HALS group). Other deaths in the study population were not related to the procedure. In both groups, the major causes of death were cancer (24 cases [36.9%]), cardiovascular causes unrelated to AAA (16 [24.6%]), and chronic obstructive lung disease (10 [15.4%]). In the long-term follow-up period, there was a difference in the overall survival in favor of HALS when compared with EVAR (P = .011).
This retrospective, single-center study shows that, within a population of similar clinical and anatomic characteristics, treatment of AAA with EVAR or HALS does not result in significant differences in early morbidity and mortality. EVAR presents significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, whereas HALS presents a lower aneurysm-related reintervention rate and lower perioperative cost. The strict patient selection in this trial, as is generally the case with AAA treatment, is likely the key to success for both of these techniques.
与传统手术相比,手助腹腔镜手术(HALS)治疗腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的初始效果令人鼓舞,但疗效仍存在很大争议。本单中心回顾性研究的目的是在高度选择的人群中,调查血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)和 HALS 治疗在中、长期随访中发病率、死亡率和再干预率的差异。
我们连续治疗了 2006 年 1 月至 2013 年 12 月期间 977 例非紧急 AAA 患者;其中 615 例(62.9%)接受了开放手术,173 例(17.7%)接受了 HALS,189 例(19.3%)接受了 EVAR。本研究仅考虑接受 HALS 或 EVAR 治疗的患者。然后进行了后续选择过程,以确定适合这些治疗方法的临床特征和动脉瘤形态的患者。最终研究队列包括 229 例患者;92 例(40.2%)接受 HALS,137 例(69.8%)接受 EVAR。两组患者的临床和人口统计学特征均相似。
平均随访时间为 57±28 个月(EVAR 组为 50±24 个月,HALS 组为 67±29 个月;范围 2-110 个月)。在围手术期内未观察到死亡或严重并发症或再干预的统计学显著差异(30 天内)。由于需要减少和重症监护病房的住院时间,EVAR 后住院时间明显缩短。术后 3 例死亡(住院 30 天后死亡率>30%:HALS,2.2%;EVAR,0.7%;P=0.7268)归因于呼吸衰竭(两组各 1 例)和继发于肠缺血的多器官衰竭(HALS 组 1 例)。研究人群中的其他死亡与该手术无关。在两组中,死亡的主要原因是癌症(24 例[36.9%])、与 AAA 无关的心血管原因(16 例[24.6%])和慢性阻塞性肺病(10 例[15.4%])。在长期随访期间,与 EVAR 相比,HALS 的总体生存率有差异(P=0.011)。
本回顾性、单中心研究表明,在具有相似临床和解剖特征的人群中,EVAR 或 HALS 治疗 AAA 不会导致早期发病率和死亡率的显著差异。EVAR 可显著缩短住院和重症监护病房的住院时间,而 HALS 可降低与动脉瘤相关的再干预率和围手术期成本。本试验对患者进行了严格的选择,这与 AAA 治疗通常的情况一样,可能是这两种技术成功的关键。