Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY.
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Nov;74(5):1565-1572.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.04.046. Epub 2021 May 3.
During the past two decades, the treatment of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs) has undergone a transformation. Although open surgical repair (OR) has remained the reference standard for treatment, endovascular repair (ER) has become an attractive alternative for select patient populations. The objective of the present study was to compare the outcomes of OR vs ER of PAAs at a single institution.
We performed a retrospective review of the medical records for all patients who had undergone repair for PAAs from 1998 to 2017. The baseline patient, anatomic, and operative characteristics and outcomes were compared between the OR and ER cohorts. Intervention and treatment were at the discretion of the surgeon.
From 1998 to 2017, 64 patients had undergone repair of 73 PAAs at our tertiary care center. Of the 69 patients (73 PAAs), 29 (33 PAAs) had undergone OR and 35 (40 PAAs) had undergone ER. When comparing the two cohorts, no statistically significant differences were found in the demographic characteristics such as age, gender, or number of runoff vessels. Significantly more patients in the ER group (n = 21; 53%) than in the OR group (n = 7; 21%) had had hyperlipidemia (P = .008) and a previous carotid intervention (6% vs 0%; P = .029). Overall, the presence of symptoms was similar between the two groups. However, the OR group had a significantly higher number of patients who had presented with acute ischemia (P = .01). The length of stay was significantly shorter for the ER cohort (mean, 1.8 days; range, 1-11 days) than for the OR group (mean, 5.4 days; range, 2-13 days; P < .0001). No significant difference was found in the primary or secondary patency rates between the two groups. In the ER group, good runoff (two or more vessels) was a positive predictor for primary patency at 1 year (odds ratio, 3.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-11.25). However, it was not in the OR group. Postoperative single and/or dual antiplatelet therapy did not affect primary patency in either cohort.
The results of our study have demonstrated that ER of PAAs is a safe and durable option with patency rates comparable to those with OR and a decreased length of stay, with good runoff a positive predictor for primary patency in the ER cohort.
在过去的二十年中,腘动脉动脉瘤(PAAs)的治疗发生了转变。虽然开放手术修复(OR)仍然是治疗的参考标准,但血管内修复(ER)已成为某些患者群体的另一种有吸引力的选择。本研究的目的是比较单中心 OR 与 ER 治疗 PAAs 的结果。
我们对 1998 年至 2017 年间在我院接受 PAAs 修复的所有患者的病历进行了回顾性分析。比较了 OR 组和 ER 组的基线患者、解剖和手术特征及结果。干预和治疗由外科医生决定。
1998 年至 2017 年间,我院三级护理中心共对 69 例(73 个 PAAs)患者进行了 73 个 PAAs 的修复。69 例患者(73 个 PAAs)中,29 例行 OR(33 个 PAAs),35 例行 ER(40 个 PAAs)。比较两组时,两组患者的人口统计学特征如年龄、性别或流出血管数量无统计学差异。ER 组(n=21;53%)有更多的患者患有高脂血症(P=0.008)和颈动脉介入史(6%比 0%;P=0.029),而 OR 组(n=7;21%)无统计学差异。总体而言,两组患者的症状相似。然而,OR 组急性缺血的患者明显更多(P=0.01)。ER 组的住院时间明显短于 OR 组(平均 1.8 天;范围 1-11 天)(P<0.0001)。两组间的一期或二期通畅率无显著差异。在 ER 组中,良好的流出(两条或以上血管)是 1 年时一期通畅的阳性预测因素(比值比,3.36;95%置信区间,1.0-11.25)。然而,在 OR 组中并非如此。术后单双联抗血小板治疗均不影响两组的一期通畅率。
我们的研究结果表明,ER 治疗 PAAs 是一种安全且持久的选择,其通畅率与 OR 相当,住院时间缩短,ER 组良好的流出是一期通畅的阳性预测因素。