Risberg retroperitoneal approach to the abdominal aorta

Influence of study design on reported mortality and morbidity rates after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

The mortality and morbidity rates of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery, as reported over the past 12 years, were graded and analysed by levels of evidence.

METHODS

Articles on elective AAA surgery published between 1985 and 1996 were retrieved and classified into five levels of evidence. Level 1 contains prospective studies and is subdivided into population-based (level 1a) and hospital-based (level 1b) studies. Level 2 includes retrospective studies, subdivided into population-based studies (level 2a), hospital-based studies (level 2b) and hospital-based studies concerning a specified group of selected patients (level 2c). Operative mortality and systemic and local/vascular complication rates with 95 per cent confidence intervals were calculated for each level of evidence.

RESULTS

Seventy-two articles describing a total of 37 654 patients could be included: two level 1a studies (692 patients), nine level 1b studies (1677 patients), 13 level 2a studies (21 409 patients), 32 level 2b studies (12019 patients) and 16 level 2c studies (1857 patients). The mean 30-day mortality rates of the two population-based levels were similar: 8.2 (95 per cent confidence interval 6.4-10.6) per cent for the prospective (la) and 7.4 (7.0-7.7) per cent for the retrospective (2a) series. These figures were significantly higher than the remarkably similar hospital-based mortality rates: 3.8 (3.0-4.8) per cent for the prospective (1b), 3.8 (3.5-4.2) per cent for the retrospective (2b) and 3.5 (2.8-4.4) per cent for selected patient group (2c) studies. The most frequent complication was of cardiac origin. In the population-based series the cardiac complication rates were 10.6 (8.5-13.2) and 11.1 (9.1-13.6) per cent for levels 1a and 2a respectively. This compared well with 12.0 (10.5-13.9) per cent for the prospective hospital-based series (level 1b). The cardiac complication rates in the retrospective hospital-based studies were significantly lower: 8.9 (8.4-9.5) and 6.1 (4.9-7.6) per cent for levels 2b and 2c respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is a clear and consistent disagreement in reported mortality rates between hospital-based and population-based studies of elective surgery for AAA. Prospective studies give the best documentation of postoperative morbidity.

Endovascular AAA treatment: expensive prestige or economic alternative?

OBJECTIVES

To compare the costs of endovascular aneurysm treatment versus open surgery during the perioperative period.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 44 patients undergoing infrarenal abdominal aneurysm repair from February 1995 to March 1996 at a university teaching hospital.

RESULTS

No endovascular procedure was converted to open repair. Operative time was shorter for endovascular treatment (207.6 min vs. 229.1 min, n.s.), as well as postoperative intensive care unit stay (ICU, 22.7 h vs. 55.0 h, p = 0.017) and the postoperative recovery period (5.6 days vs. 13.3 days, p < 0.001). Open surgery generated significantly more costs (25,374.07 ECU vs. 22,268.78 ECU, p < 0.001), despite evaluation and a more expensive endovascular procedure (10,699.48 ECU vs. 4032.01 ECU, p < 0.001). During the study, costs for open surgery exceeded the cost for endovascular treatment by 13.95%.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular aneurysm treatment is cost effective and less expensive than open surgery. The main reason for cost saving is faster patient recovery after surgery, associated with a shorter LOS in the patients treated with endovascular procedure.

Midline extraperitoneal approach for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

The incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is rising and elective repair is becoming more commonplace. We describe a new, simple midline extraperitoneal approach for AAA repair. It is particularly suitable for patients who have an inflammatory AAA, abdominal adhesions or a horseshoe kidney. This approach provides excellent exposure to the whole aortoiliac system without the need for separate incisions, whilst retaining the potential advantages of the extraperitoneal approach.