Lorenzo Ciofani, Pierfilippo Acciarri, Roberta Ricci, Francesca Tagliabracci, Emma Pederzani, Danila Azzolina, Luca Traina
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Long-term results of endovascular versus open retroperitoneal repair associated with ERAS protocol for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
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.
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.