Clinical Study of the Treatments for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm; Comparison between the Retroperitoneal and Transperitoneal Approaches.
- Author:
Bong Soo SON
1
;
Sung Woon CHUNG
;
Sang Kwon LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, School of Medicine, Pusan National University, Korea. chungsungwoon@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Aorta;
Aneurysm;
Retroperitoneal approach
- MeSH:
Aneurysm;
Aneurysm, Ruptured;
Aorta;
Aorta, Abdominal;
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal;
Creatinine;
Fasting;
Humans;
Incidence;
Intensive Care Units;
Postoperative Complications;
Risk Factors;
Rupture;
Smoke;
Smoking;
Survival Rate
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2009;42(1):34-40
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The principal surgical technique for treating an abdominal aortic aneurysm since the 1960s has been the transperitoneal approach, yet there have been some recent studies that have reported improved surgical results with using the retroperitoneal approach. However, there are only limited clinical Korean studies that have, compared between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. MATERIAL AND METHOD: This study included 36 patients who had been diagnosed as having an aneurysm of the abdominal aorta and they were surgically treated between January 2001 and July 2007. The patients were subdivided into the retroperitoneal approach group (n=17) and the transperitoneal approach group (n=19), and they were compared in terms of the preoperative risk factors, the postoperative complications and the operative mortality. The risk factors of operative mortality risk and long-term survival for the 36 patients were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULT: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of gender, age, the underlying disease, a history of smoking, rupture of aneurysm, the preoperative symptoms, the operation time and the incidence of postoperative complications. However, the duration of postoperative fasting, the number of days of having an indwelling nasogastric tube and the length of the stay in the intensive care unit were significantly short for the retroperitoneal approach group (p<0.05). There was a 16.7% rate of operative mortality (6/36) and five of the deaths were attributed to preoperative ruptured aneurysm. On univariate analysis, a higher preoperative serum creatinine level (SCr > or =1.8 mg/dL, p=0.016) and ruptured aneurysm (p<0.001) were the significant risk factors of operative mortality. As assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method, the long-term survival was comparable between the groups and the five-year survival rate of all the patients was 57.5%. CONCLUSION: In the present study, a retroperitoneal approach has several advantages such as a shorter intensive care unit stay, a shorter duration of postoperative fasting and a shorter duration of an indwelling nasogastric tube. Therefore, unless there is any contraindication for a retroperitoneal approach, it could be considered as a primary surgical access for repairing an abdominal aortic aneurysm.
