Long-term results of endovascular versus open retroperitoneal repair associated with ERAS protocol for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE Vascular Pub Date : 2024-11-18 DOI:10.1177/17085381241302141
Lorenzo Ciofani, Pierfilippo Acciarri, Roberta Ricci, Francesca Tagliabracci, Emma Pederzani, Danila Azzolina, Luca Traina
{"title":"Long-term results of endovascular versus open retroperitoneal repair associated with ERAS protocol for abdominal aortic aneurysms.","authors":"Lorenzo Ciofani, Pierfilippo Acciarri, Roberta Ricci, Francesca Tagliabracci, Emma Pederzani, Danila Azzolina, Luca Traina","doi":"10.1177/17085381241302141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Although the endovascular management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is widely performed, many studies have shown better long-term results with open graft repairing, mostly focusing on the classical open repair with midline access. This study aims to evaluate long-term results comparing EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) and surgical open repair with retroperitoneal access associated with ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of 156 patients treated for AAA between 2015 and 2018 was conducted. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the two groups were homogeneous except for age, which was significantly higher in patients belonging to the EVAR one, and for previous laparotomies. A total of 100 patients (58.7%) underwent open retroperitoneal repair (ORR group), and 56 (42.3%) underwent EVAR. A mean of 51 ± 28 months of follow-up was conducted. This study aims to evaluate long-term survival by comparing EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) and surgical open repair with retroperitoneal access associated with ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol. Secondary aims evaluate differences between the two techniques regarding late complications, need for re-interventions, and perioperative results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Freedom from all-cause mortality, calculated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves equalizing the two population with a Covariate Propensity Score, showed significant better survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years in ORRs then in EVARs. Late complications (>30 days) and need for late re-intervention rates were greater in the EVAR group (6 late re-interventions needed vs 0 in the ORR group).Perioperative results show longer mean length of hospital stay in patients belonging to the ORR group (5 days vs 2) and significantly higher in-hospital-complication rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The long-term comparison between EVAR and open retroperitoneal repair shows significantly better late outcomes in the ORR group. The perioperative course appears significantly better in EVARs but anyway good in ORRs when a perioperative protocol as ERAS is applied.In a selected population of young patients fit for surgery, the retroperitoneal surgical approach should be highly taken into account in the therapeutical choice.</p>","PeriodicalId":23549,"journal":{"name":"Vascular","volume":" ","pages":"17085381241302141"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17085381241302141","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Although the endovascular management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is widely performed, many studies have shown better long-term results with open graft repairing, mostly focusing on the classical open repair with midline access. This study aims to evaluate long-term results comparing EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) and surgical open repair with retroperitoneal access associated with ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 156 patients treated for AAA between 2015 and 2018 was conducted. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the two groups were homogeneous except for age, which was significantly higher in patients belonging to the EVAR one, and for previous laparotomies. A total of 100 patients (58.7%) underwent open retroperitoneal repair (ORR group), and 56 (42.3%) underwent EVAR. A mean of 51 ± 28 months of follow-up was conducted. This study aims to evaluate long-term survival by comparing EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) and surgical open repair with retroperitoneal access associated with ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol. Secondary aims evaluate differences between the two techniques regarding late complications, need for re-interventions, and perioperative results.

Results: Freedom from all-cause mortality, calculated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves equalizing the two population with a Covariate Propensity Score, showed significant better survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years in ORRs then in EVARs. Late complications (>30 days) and need for late re-intervention rates were greater in the EVAR group (6 late re-interventions needed vs 0 in the ORR group).Perioperative results show longer mean length of hospital stay in patients belonging to the ORR group (5 days vs 2) and significantly higher in-hospital-complication rate.

Conclusions: The long-term comparison between EVAR and open retroperitoneal repair shows significantly better late outcomes in the ORR group. The perioperative course appears significantly better in EVARs but anyway good in ORRs when a perioperative protocol as ERAS is applied.In a selected population of young patients fit for surgery, the retroperitoneal surgical approach should be highly taken into account in the therapeutical choice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹主动脉瘤 ERAS 方案相关的腹膜后血管内修复术与开放式修复术的长期效果。
目的:尽管腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的血管内治疗已广泛开展,但许多研究显示,开放式移植修复术的长期效果更好,其中大多数研究侧重于中线入路的经典开放式修复术。本研究旨在评估EVAR(血管内动脉瘤修补术)和与ERAS(术后增强恢复)方案相关的腹膜后入路手术开放式修补术的长期效果比较:对2015年至2018年间接受AAA治疗的156名患者进行了回顾性分析。两组患者的临床和人口统计学特征相同,除了年龄(EVAR组患者的年龄明显更高)和既往开腹手术。共有100名患者(58.7%)接受了开腹腹膜后修复术(ORR组),56名患者(42.3%)接受了EVAR术。平均随访时间为(51±28)个月。本研究旨在通过比较 EVAR(血管内动脉瘤修补术)和与 ERAS(术后增强恢复)方案相关的腹膜后入路手术开放式修补术,评估长期存活率。次要目的是评估两种技术在晚期并发症、再次干预需求和围手术期结果方面的差异:通过卡普兰-梅耶生存曲线计算出的全因死亡率显示,在1、3和5年的生存率上,ORR明显优于EVAR。EVAR组的晚期并发症(超过30天)和需要晚期再次介入治疗的比例更高(需要6次晚期再次介入治疗,而ORR组为0次)。围手术期结果显示,ORR组患者的平均住院时间更长(5天对2天),院内并发症发生率明显更高:结论:EVAR与开腹腹膜后修复术的长期比较显示,ORR组患者的后期疗效明显更好。在选定的适合手术的年轻患者群体中,腹膜后手术方法应在治疗选择中得到高度重视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Vascular
Vascular 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
196
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Vascular provides readers with new and unusual up-to-date articles and case reports focusing on vascular and endovascular topics. It is a highly international forum for the discussion and debate of all aspects of this distinct surgical specialty. It also features opinion pieces, literature reviews and controversial issues presented from various points of view.
期刊最新文献
Association between statin-use and mobility and long-term survival after major lower limb amputation. Factors affecting lower extremity venous insufficiency recurrence following radiofrequency ablation. Identifying venous clinical severity score thresholds for Clinical-Etiology-Anatomy-Pathophysiology classifications of venous edema and higher. Simultaneous aortoiliac kissing Endovascular stenting for management of isolated monolateral common iliac artery aneurysm with no proximal landing zone. Increased anti-thrombotic therapy is associated with decreased major adverse limb events in patients with low wound and foot infection scores.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1