Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Aortobifemoral Bypass for Occlusive Disease. Early and Mid-term Results

Total Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Versus Minimal Access Techniques: Review Of More Than 600 Patients

In the following paper we describe our experience with a large number of patients in which either a laparoscopic assisted procedure or a total laparoscopic operation was performed.

From 1996 until 2005 a total number of 638 aortic patients were operated on using a total laparoscopic or a laparoscopic assisted approach. A total laparoscopic operation was accomplished in 236 cases. A laparoscopic assisted aortic operation was performed in 402 patients. In aneurysm patients a tube graft was more frequently implanted.

Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with a total laparoscopic abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (3.0%) compared to a laparoscopic assisted procedure (1.8%). There was no significant difference in mortality in patients with occlusive disease and a total laparoscopic aortofemoral bypass versus a laparoscopically assisted operation.

The same tendency could be observed when analyzing the incidence of major perioperative complications. Again we found no significant difference in patients with occlusive disease yet more severe complications directly related to the operation in patients with a total laparoscopic aneurysm repair.

There was a significantly increased complication rate in total laparoscopic aortoiliac repair with a bifurcated prosthesis compared to a tube graft repair: a tendency we could not observe in aneurysm patients with a laparoscopic assisted operation.

Our data also show that there is a lot of room for technical improvements such as stapling devices or special grafts to reduce total operating times as well as the period of aortic crossclamping. The routine use of a minilaparotomy can hardly be a solution considering the technical drawbacks such as impaired vision and long term complications like ventral hernias. Compared to open surgery the midterm results of laparoscopic aortic procedures are promising. The time has come to prove that good results can be obtained in more than a few specialized centers.

Laparoscopic surgery in the management of complex aortic disease: techniques and lessons learned

Laparoscopic vascular surgery must be assessed in the context of both open and endovascular interventions. The development of improved laparoscopic equipment and endoscopic techniques makes performance of laparoscopy easier, but endovascular interventions still hold wide appeal because they are minimally invasive and are easier to master by vascular surgeons. Despite decreased morbidity and recovery time, endovascular interventions have inferior durability and higher reintervention rates when compared with open aortoiliac interventions. In particular, after endovascular aneurysm repair, patients need lifelong surveillance because there is potential for delayed endoleaks, aortic neck dilatation, graft migration, and ongoing risk of aneurysmal rupture. These limitations of endovascular therapy are the impetus behind the pursuit of other minimally invasive techniques, such as laparoscopy, in vascular surgery. Currently, two evolving laparoscopic approaches are available for abdominal vascular surgery: total laparoscopic aortic surgery and hybrid techniques that combine laparoscopy with endovascular techniques to treat failing endografts.

Aortic replacement in aorto-occlusive disease: an observational study

Background

For many patients with aorto-occlusive disease, where stent deployment is not possible, surgery remains the only treatment option available. The aim of this study was to assess the results of aortic reconstruction surgery performed in patients with critical ischaemia.

Methods

All patients with critical ischaemia undergoing surgery during 1991–2004 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Mortality data was verified against death certificate data. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from the clinical notes and the radiology database. Disease was classified as: type I – limited to aorta and common iliac arteries; type II – external iliac disease and type III combined aortic, iliac and infra-inguinal disease.

Results

86 patients underwent aortic replacement surgery all of whom had critical ischaemia consisting of: type I (n = 16); type II (n = 37) and type III (n = 33). The 30-day mortality rate was 10.4%, the one-year patient survival was 80%, and the 1-year graft survival was 80%. At 2 years the actual patient survival was 73% and no additional graft losses were identified. All patients surviving 30 days reported excellent symptomatic relief. Early, complications occurred in 6 (7%) patients: thrombosis within diseased superficial femoral arteries (n = 4); haemorrhage and subsequent death (n = 2). Ten (14%) late complications (> 12 months) occurred in the 69 surviving patients and included: anastomotic stenosis (n = 3); graft thrombosis (n = 4), graft infection (n = 3). Four patients developed claudication as a result of more distal disease in the presence of a patent graft, and 1 patient who continued smoking required an amputation for progressive distal disease.

Conclusion

Aortic reconstruction for patients with extensive aorto-occlussive disease provides long-standing symptomatic relief for the majority of patients. After the first year, there is continued patient attrition due to co-existent cardiovascular disease but no further graft losses.

Critical limb ischemia: medical and surgical management

Abstract

Chronic critical limb ischemia (CLI), defined as > 2 weeks of rest pain, ulcers, or tissue loss attributed to arterial occlusive disease, is associated with great loss of both limb and life. Therapeutic goals in treating patients with CLI include reducing cardiovascular risk factors, relieving ischemic pain, healing ulcers, preventing major amputation, improving quality of life and increasing survival. These aims may be achieved through medical therapy, revascularization, or amputation. Medical therapy includes administration of analgesics, local wound care and pressure relief, treatment of infection, and aggressive therapy to modify atherosclerotic risk factors. For patients who are not candidates for revascularization, and who are unwilling or unable to undergo amputation, treatments such as intermittent pneumatic compression or spinal cord stimulation may offer symptom relief and promote wound healing. Revascularization offers the best option for limb salvage. The decision to perform surgery, endovascular therapy, or a combination of the two modalities (‘hybrid’ therapy) must be individualized. Patients who are relatively fit and able to withstand the rigors of an open procedure may benefit from the long-term durability of surgical repair. In contrast, frail patients with a limited life expectancy may experience better outcomes with endovascular reconstruction. Hybrid therapy is an attractive option for patients with limited autologous conduit, as it permits complete revascularization with a less extensive procedure, shorter duration of operation, and decreased risk of peri-operative complications. Amputation should be considered for patients who are non-ambulatory, demented, or unfit to undergo revascularization.

Laparoscopic Vascular Surgery: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the results of clinical studies on laparoscopic surgery for aorto-iliac disease.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 1966 to September 2006 on laparoscopic and robotic vascular surgery was performed. Only patient series containing more than 5 cases were included. Operative, clamping and anastomosis times, conversion, mortality and morbidity and hospital stay were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were identified. These were all descriptive and included 9 comparative studies. Operative times varied widely, the shortest being for hand-assisted procedures (2.5-4 hours) and the longest for totally laparoscopic procedures (4-6.5 hours). Clamping times were all<1 hour in hand-assisted procedures while in other techniques clamping times from 1-2.5 hours were seen. The conversion rate varied from <5% up to 16% in smaller series. The mortality rate was approximately 5% and frequently caused by cardiac ischemia. A variety of problems ranging from minor local wound problems to cardiopulmonary- and renal insufficiency, bleeding, ureter lesions and graft thrombosis were described. Mean hospital stay for nearly all procedures was <1 week.

CONCLUSIONS

Experience of laparoscopic surgery for aorto-iliac disease is still limited. Most study results are biased by patient selection. Only a few surgeons have mastered the required surgical technique and more data are needed to asses the clinical potential of this type of surgery, in comparison with the endovascular alternative. For wider implementation simplification of the surgical procedure seems necessary.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopy Versus Conventional Median Laparotomy for Aortobifemoral Bypass for Severe Aorto-iliac Occlusive Disease: A Prospective Randomised Study

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate that hand-assisted laparoscopy for aortofemoral bypass for severe aorto-iliac occlusive disease reduces morbidity with earlier recovery of bowel function and shorter in-hospital stay.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six consecutive patients with severe aorto-iliac occlusive disease (TASK C/D) without history of major abdominal surgery necessitating an aortobifemoral bypass were randomised between a hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS) approach and a conventional medial laparotomy. Operative data, early recovery data, quality of life and vascular outcome were analysed.

RESULTS

No significant differences in operative data were found. Fluid and solid diet were resumed earlier (28.8 hrs vs. 76.9 hrs; p = 0.016) (45.6 hrs vs. 105.6 hrs; p = 0.02) and in-hospital stay was shorter (7.5 vs. 8.9 days; p = 0.005) in the HALS group. Six weeks post-operatively social functioning measured by the SF-36 survey score was better in patients randomised to HALS (p=0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

HALS is a less invasive approach for aortofemoral bypass.

Hand assisted laparoscopic surgery of aortoiliac occlusive disease: initial results

OBJECTIVES

Open aortobifemoral bypass grafting has been the procedure of choice for many years in patients with symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). Hand assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for AIOD could have advantages like faster recovery, faster oral intake and shorter hospital stay compared to the conventional technique. We documented the results of patients who underwent HALS for AIOD in our hospitals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

from January 1999 to December 2002, 33 consecutive patients underwent HALS for AIOD. Peri- and postoperative results were prospectively registered. Three different laparoscopic approaches were applied: transperitoneal, retroperitoneal and apron approach.

RESULTS

There were 23 males and 10 females, with a mean age of 59 years (range 39-85). The surgical technique applied was: transperitoneal: 22 patients, retroperitoneal: 7 patients, apron: 4 patients. Per-operative results (median) of the transperitoneal, retroperitoneal and apron approach are: operating time 240, 420 and 263 minutes, cross clamp time 32.5, 40 and 33.5 minutes, blood loss 1150, 2100 and 950 ml, respectively. Postoperatively oral intake was fully resumed in 3, 4.5 and 2 days after performing the transperitoneal, retroperitoneal and apron technique. During the ICU stay patients received artificial respiration for 0, 1 and 0 days, admission to the ICU was 0.5, 1 and 0.75 days for the transperitoneal, retroperitoneal and apron approach. Finally, hospital stay was 8, 12.5 and 7 days after the transperitoneal, retroperitoneal and apron approach. Four patients (12%) had a minor complication, 4 patients (12%) had a major complication; pneumonia with ARDS, sepsis, bypass occlusion and chylo-abdomen. No patients died.

CONCLUSIONS

HALS for AIOD is a technically demanding operation with a long learning curve. All three approaches are feasible. In this series of patients, we feel the transperitoneal and apron approach have the most advantages because of the larger working space. Finally, randomized trials will determine if laparoscopic assisted or total laparoscopic aortoiliac surgery has the potential to reduce morbidity for the patient compared to the conventional technique.