Laparoscopic-assisted treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm requiring suprarenal cross-clamping

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus endovascular repair in abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment

OBJECTIVE

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has shown promising initial results compared with traditional surgery, but its efficacy remains highly debated. The aim of this monocentric, retrospective study was to investigate differences in morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and HALS, in the medium- and long-term follow-up in a highly selected population.

METHODS

We treated 977 patients consecutively for nonurgent AAA from January 2006 to December 2013; among them, 615 (62.9%) underwent open surgery, 173 (17.7%) HALS, and 189 (19.3%) EVAR. For this study, only patients treated with HALS or EVAR were considered. A subsequent selection process was carried out to identify the patients with clinical characteristics and aneurysm morphology amenable to either of these treatments. The final study cohort included 229 patients; 92 (40.2%) underwent HALS and 137 (69.8%) received EVAR. The two populations were homogeneous for clinical and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

The mean duration of follow-up was 57 ± 28 months (50 ± 24 months in the EVAR group and 67 ± 29 months in the HALS group; range, 2-110 months). No deaths and no statistically significant differences in severe complications or reinterventions were observed over the perioperative period (30 days). Length of stay was significantly shorter after EVAR, because the need for and length of stay in the intensive care unit were decreased. Three postoperative deaths (in-hospital mortality >30 days: HALS, 2.2%; EVAR, 0.7%; P = .7268) occurred owing to respiratory failure (two patients, one in each group) and multiorgan failure secondary to a bowel ischemia (one patient in the HALS group). Other deaths in the study population were not related to the procedure. In both groups, the major causes of death were cancer (24 cases [36.9%]), cardiovascular causes unrelated to AAA (16 [24.6%]), and chronic obstructive lung disease (10 [15.4%]). In the long-term follow-up period, there was a difference in the overall survival in favor of HALS when compared with EVAR (P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective, single-center study shows that, within a population of similar clinical and anatomic characteristics, treatment of AAA with EVAR or HALS does not result in significant differences in early morbidity and mortality. EVAR presents significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, whereas HALS presents a lower aneurysm-related reintervention rate and lower perioperative cost. The strict patient selection in this trial, as is generally the case with AAA treatment, is likely the key to success for both of these techniques.

Systematic review of perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

To collate information available in the literature regarding perioperative outcomes following elective laparoscopic abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were searched and a systematic review was performed. In total, 1256 abstracts were screened, from which 10 studies were included for analysis. Perioperative and technical outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

In the totally laparoscopic repair of infra-renal aneurysms (n = 302), 30-day mortality ranged between 0% and 6% and in the laparoscopic-assisted cases (n = 547) ranged between 0% and 7%. Of the former group, 5-30% of cases were converted to open repair, with 6% reintervention rate, whereas there was a 5-10% conversion and 3% reintervention rate in the latter group.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes from selected patients in selected centres demonstrate that elective laparoscopic repair of aortic aneurysms is feasible and comparable in safety to open repair; it remains unclear, however, whether there are substantial advantages of this method compared with open and endovascular repair.

Incidence and prevention of ventral incisional hernia

OBJECTIVE

Ventral incisional hernia is a common complication of abdominal surgery. The incidence ranges from 2% to 20% and varies greatly from one series to another. The goal of this study was to determine the incidence, risk factors, and preventive measures for ventral incisional hernia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An analysis of the surgical literature was performed using the search engines EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed with the keywords: abdominal hernia, wound dehiscence, incisional hernia, incidence, trocar site hernia, and hernia prevention.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy was 9.9%. The incidence was significantly higher for midline incisions compared with transverse incisions (11% vs. 4.7%; P=0.006). In contrast, the incidence of ventral hernia was only 0.7% after laparoscopy. A compilation of all the studies comparing laparotomy to laparoscopy showed a significantly higher incidence of incisional hernia after laparotomy (P=0.001). Independent risk factors for incisional hernia included age and infectious complications. Only two meta-analyses were able to show a significant decrease in risk-related to the use of non absorbable or slowly absorbable suture material. No difference in incisional hernia risk was shown with different suture techniques (11.1% for running suture, 9.8% for interrupted sutures: NS).

CONCLUSION

A review of the literature shows that only the choice of incisional approach (transverse incision or laparotomy vs. midline laparotomy) allows a significant decrease in the incidence of ventral incisional hernia.

Laparoscopic kidney transplantation: an initial experience

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy has the advantages of less pain, early ambulation and shorter hospitalization compared to open donor nephrectomy. Kidney recipient surgery is, however, traditionally performed by open surgery. Our aim was to study feasibility and safety of laparoscopic kidney transplantation (LKT). After permission from Internal Review Board, LKT was performed in four patients. All kidneys were procured from deceased donors. Left kidney was used for LKT and transplanted in left iliac fossa while right kidney was used for standard open kidney transplantation (OKT). All transplantation procedures were performed successfully. Cold ischemia time varied between 4 h and 14 h. For LKT, mean time for anastomosis was 65 (range 62-72) min, mean operative time was 3.97 (range 3.5-5) h, mean blood loss was 131.25 mL (range 45-350) mL. Mean wound length was 7 cm in LKT group and 18.4 cm in OKT group. Delayed graft function was observed in one patient in each group. One patient was lost in OKT group due to posttransplant bacterial meningitis. At 6 months, both groups have comparable value of serum creatinine. In conclusion, LKT is technically feasible and safe. Long term outcome needs to be evaluated in a larger study.