These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Minimal incision aortic surgery.
    Author: Turnipseed WD, Carr SC, Tefera G, Acher CW, Hoch JR.
    Journal: J Vasc Surg; 2001 Jul; 34(1):47-53. PubMed ID: 11436074.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: In this study we evaluated the clinical and economic impact of minimal incision aortic surgery (MIAS) for treatment of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). METHOD: Fifty patients with either AAA (34) or AIOD (16), prospectively treated with the MIAS technique, were compared with 50 patients (40 AAA and 10 AIOD) treated in the same time period with long midline incision and extracavitary small bowel retraction. MIAS was also compared with a cohort of 32 patients with AAA treated by means of endoaortic stent-grafts. Outcomes and cost (based on metric mean length of stay) were compared for the open and endoaortic techniques. RESULTS: Patients who experienced no perioperative complications after the MIAS or endovascular repair technique had shorter hospital stays than patients with uncomplicated aortic repairs performed with a traditional long midline abdominal incision (3 days vs 3 days vs. 7.2 days). Hospital stay was also significantly shorter for the less invasive procedures when perioperative complications were included (4.8 days vs. 4.3 days vs 9.3 days). The MIAS and endovascular aortic repair groups had a shorter intensive care unit stay (< or = 1.0 day) and a quicker return to general dietary feeding (2.5 days) than patients treated with standard open repair (1.8 days, 4.7 days). The overall morbidity for the MIAS technique (14%) and endovascular technique (21%) was not significantly different from standard open repair (24%). The mortality rate for the different treatment groups was equivalent (MIAS, 2%; endovascular repair, 3%; standard repair, 2%). The MIAS was more cost-efficient than standard open repair ($12,585 vs $18,445) because of shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay and was more cost-efficient than endoaortic repair ($12,585 vs $32,040) because of reduced, direct intraoperative costs. CONCLUSIONS: MIAS is as safe as standard open or endovascular repair in the treatment of AAA and AIOD. MIAS is more cost-efficient than standard open or endoaortic repair.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]