Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Vascular Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Aug;76(2):354-363.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2022.02.041. Epub 2022 Mar 8.
Several studies have demonstrated the advantages of a retroperitoneal (RP) vs a transperitoneal (TP) approach during open repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). We compared the outcomes after open repair of complex AAAs (cAAAs) using an RP vs a TP approach and evaluated the relative use of these approaches over time.
We identified all patients who had undergone open intact cAAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative from 2003 to -2019 and created 1:1-propensity score-matched cohorts stratified by the operative approach (RP vs TP). The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. The secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and approach usage over time. To create 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts, the patients were matched for demographics, comorbidities, and anatomic and/or intraoperative characteristics, including proximal clamp site and renal revascularization. The approach usage over time was determined by plotting the proportion of RP usage over time for the overall open cAAA cohort and subgroups of repairs using a supraceliac cross clamp, repair with concomitant renal revascularization, and repairs performed at high-volume centers (highest quintile, >11 cases annually).
Of a total of 4613 patients, 2843 (62%) had undergone open cAAA repair using the TP approach and 1770 (38%) using the RP approach. Of the 1256 matched pairs, the RP approach was associated with lower risk of perioperative mortality compared with the TP approach (3.9% vs 6.8%; relative risk [RR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.80; P = .001). Furthermore, the RP approach was associated with a lower risk of cardiac complications (7.2% vs 9.6%; RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98), bowel ischemia (3.1% vs 5.4%; RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.84), and postoperative dialysis (3.3% vs 5.5%; RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.87). Overall, the proportion of patients who had undergone repair via an RP approach became lower over time (-1.0%/y; 95% CI, -1.5 to -0.5; P < .001). A similar trend in the decrease was found for the patients who had undergone repair with a supraceliac clamp (-2.3%/y; 95% CI, -3.6 to -1.0; P < .001) and in the high-volume hospitals (-2.1%/y; 95% CI, -3.4 to -0.8; P = .001), although no statistically significant decrease in RP usage was found for the patients who had undergone concomitant renal revascularization (-0.9%/y; 95% CI, -2.6 to 0.8; P = .28).
For open cAAA repair, an RP approach was associated with lower perioperative mortality and complications compared with a TP approach. However, the relative usage of the RP approach has been decreasing over time. An increased adoption of the RP approach, when appropriate, might lead to improved outcomes with open cAAA repair.
多项研究表明,在开放修复肾下腹部主动脉瘤(AAA)时,腹膜后(RP)与经腹腔(TP)入路相比具有优势。我们比较了使用 RP 与 TP 入路开放修复复杂 AAA(cAAA)的结果,并评估了随着时间的推移这些方法的相对使用情况。
我们从 2003 年至 2019 年在血管质量倡议中确定了所有接受开放完整 cAAA 修复的患者,并按手术方法(RP 与 TP)创建了 1:1 倾向评分匹配队列。主要结局是围手术期死亡率。次要结局包括围手术期并发症和随时间推移的方法使用情况。为了创建 1:1 倾向评分匹配队列,患者按照人口统计学、合并症以及解剖学和/或术中特征(包括近端夹闭部位和肾血运重建)进行匹配。通过绘制整体开放 cAAA 队列和使用 supracli- ac 交叉夹、同时进行肾血运重建的修复以及在高容量中心(最高五分位数,每年>11 例)进行的修复的 RP 使用比例来确定方法使用随时间的变化情况。
在总共 4613 例患者中,2843 例(62%)采用 TP 入路,1770 例(38%)采用 RP 入路接受开放 cAAA 修复。在 1256 对匹配的患者中,与 TP 入路相比,RP 入路与较低的围手术期死亡率相关(3.9%比 6.8%;相对风险 [RR],0.57;95%置信区间 [CI],0.41-0.80;P=.001)。此外,RP 入路与较低的心脏并发症风险(7.2%比 9.6%;RR,0.75;95%CI,0.58-0.98)、肠缺血(3.1%比 5.4%;RR,0.56;95%CI,0.39-0.84)和术后透析(3.3%比 5.5%;RR,0.59;95%CI,0.41-0.87)相关。总体而言,接受 RP 入路修复的患者比例随时间推移呈下降趋势(-1.0%/年;95%CI,-1.5 至-0.5;P<.001)。对于接受 supracli- ac 夹修复的患者(-2.3%/年;95%CI,-3.6 至-1.0;P<.001)和高容量医院的患者(-2.1%/年;95%CI,-3.4 至-0.8;P=.001),也发现了类似的下降趋势,尽管接受同时进行肾血运重建的患者中 RP 使用率的下降没有统计学意义(-0.9%/年;95%CI,-2.6 至 0.8;P=.28)。
对于开放 cAAA 修复,与 TP 入路相比,RP 入路与较低的围手术期死亡率和并发症相关。然而,RP 入路的相对使用量随着时间的推移而减少。适当增加 RP 入路的应用可能会改善开放修复 cAAA 的结果。