Walker Hamish, Chana Manik S, Mandalia Kavisha, Kulkarni Sachin R, Paravastu Sharath C V
Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucester, United Kingdom.
EJVES Vasc Forum. 2024 May 10;61:116-120. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2024.05.003. eCollection 2024.
A hybrid approach is being employed increasingly in the management of peripheral arterial disease. This study aimed to assess the surgical site infection (SSI) incidence of hybrid revascularisation (HR) compared with common femoral endarterectomy (CFEA) alone.
This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent CFEA or HR alongside CFEA between 2017 and 2021 including one year of follow up. The primary outcome was SSI incidence. Secondary outcomes included length of surgery, duration of admission, further revascularisation surgery, limb salvage, and death. Differences in outcomes were assessed with the Student's unpaired test, chi square test, and Fisher's exact test.
A total of 157 groin incisions from 155 patients were included: 78 had CFEA procedures and 79 had HR procedures. No statistical difference was found between groups for age, sex, and indication for surgery. Surgical site infection occurred in five of the CFEA patients (6%) compared with seven of the HR patients (9%) ( = 0.77). The HR procedures took significantly longer, with an average of 299 minutes compared with 220 minutes for CFEA ( < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was identified for length of admission: median stay five days for CFEA four days for HR ( = 0.44). Major amputation was performed within one year in five of the CFEA procedures (6%) and five of the HR procedures (6%) ( = 1.0). Further revascularisation surgery was attempted in two patients in the HR group and six patients in the CFEA group ( =. 17). No statistically significant difference was found in the one year mortality rate: eight CFEA (10%) and seven HR (9%) ( = 0.77).
Patients who underwent HR alongside CFEA did not have a statistically significantly increased incidence of SSI, despite increased surgical time. Using HR techniques enabled patients to have multilevel disease treated in one stage without an increased incidence of SSI.
在外周动脉疾病的管理中,一种混合方法正越来越多地被采用。本研究旨在评估与单纯股总动脉内膜切除术(CFEA)相比,混合血管重建术(HR)的手术部位感染(SSI)发生率。
这是一项对2017年至2021年间接受CFEA或HR联合CFEA的连续患者进行的回顾性研究,包括一年的随访。主要结局是SSI发生率。次要结局包括手术时长、住院时间、再次血管重建手术、肢体挽救和死亡。使用学生氏非配对t检验、卡方检验和费舍尔精确检验评估结局差异。
共纳入155例患者的157处腹股沟切口:78例行CFEA手术,79例行HR手术。两组在年龄、性别和手术指征方面未发现统计学差异。CFEA患者中有5例(6%)发生手术部位感染,而HR患者中有7例(9%)发生手术部位感染(P = 0.77)。HR手术耗时明显更长,平均299分钟,而CFEA为220分钟(P < 0.001)。住院时间无统计学显著差异:CFEA的中位住院时间为5天,HR为4天(P = 0.44)。CFEA手术中有5例(6%)和HR手术中有5例(6%)在1年内进行了大截肢(P = 1.0)。HR组有2例患者和CFEA组有6例患者尝试了再次血管重建手术(P = 0.17)。1年死亡率无统计学显著差异:CFEA组8例(10%),HR组7例(9%)(P = 0.77)。
尽管手术时间增加,但接受HR联合CFEA的患者SSI发生率在统计学上并未显著增加。使用HR技术可使患者在一个阶段内治疗多节段疾病,而不增加SSI发生率。