Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the , the International Union of Phlebology and the
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,899
Online ISSN 1827-1839
Barillà D. 1, Sobocinski J. 2, Stilo F. 1, Maurel B. 2, Spinelli F. 1, 3, Haulon S. 2
1 Vascular Surgery, Policlinico Universitario G. Martino, Messina, Italy;
2 Vascular Surgery, Hôpital Cardiologique, CHRU Lille, France;
3 Vascular Surgery, Università Campus Biomedico, Rome, Italy
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the results of complex aneurysm (hostile neck anatomies) repair in high-risk patients with two minimally invasive techniques, fenestrated endografting (f-EVAR where EVAR stands for endovascular aneurysm repair) and minilaparotomy.
METHODS: All high-risk patients (N.=50, group 1) with hostile neck abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) operated in the vascular surgery department of the “Policlinico Universitario G. Martino” of Messina (Italy) during a 5-year period (January 2006-December 2010) were cross-matched with 50 similar patients (group 2) treated in the Vascular Surgery Department of the “Hopital Cardiologique” University of Lille (France) with similar anatomies, comorbidities and risk factors. The patients in group 1 underwent open minilaparotomy surgery, and the patients in group 2 were treated with f-EVAR. The aim of our study was to compare perioperative complications, survival and reintervention rates.
RESULTS: Perioperative cardiac complications occurred in 5 patients (10%) in group 1, and 1 patient (2%) in group 2 (P<0.092). Renal impairment not requiring permanent hemodialysis was significantly higher in group 1 (14% vs. 2% P<0.027), as well as respiratory complications (32% vs. 2% P<0.0001). Five patients (10%) in group 1 underwent reintervention vs. 4 patients in group 2 (P<0.7268). There was no statistically significant difference for survival rates at 30 days (92% in group 1 and 96% in group 2; P=0.399); at six months (90% vs. 96%; P=0.239); at one year (90% vs. 96%; P=0.239); and at two years (84% vs. 94%; P=0.110). However, we observed statistically significant differences in survival rates at three years (74% vs. 94%; P<0.006); at four years (70% vs. 86%; P<0.005); and at five years (65% vs. 68%; P<0.003).
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that both techniques are effective in the treatment of AAA with hostile neck in high-risk patients. Although operative mortality rate was not statistically different, f-EVAR showed better results in terms of early complications and late survival.