Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms: is one superior?

Abstract

As endovascular treatment of asymptomatic infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) increasingly competes with surgical repair, it is necessary to optimize the surgical technique. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate the superiority of either retroperitoneal (RP) or transperitoneal (TP) approach. Intra- and peri-operative data from 80 patients with infrarenal AAA and tube graft repair were analysed retrospectively. The RP-approach was used in 37 patients and in 43 the transperitoneal. There was no relevant difference in demographic data and anaesthetic regime; exceptions were differences between the two groups in terms of age (median RP 72.31 vs. TP 68.58 years, p = 0.0174), hypertension (RP 26/37 vs. TP 40/43, p = 0.0019), smoking (RP 25/37 vs. TP 38/43, p = 0.0462), pulmonary diseases (RP 15/37 vs. TP 7/43, p = 0.0232), and previous abdominal surgery (RP 3/37 vs. TP 12/43, p = 0.042). No patient died during the first 30 post-operative days. The RP-group had a longer cross-clamping time (median RP 50 vs. TP 45 min, p = 0.0115) but no difference was found in operating time. Intra-operative blood loss was higher in the RP-group (median RP 800 vs. TP 500 ml, p = 0.033) with an increased need for blood substitutes (median RP 1 vs. TP 0 packed red cells, p = 0.0068). Time spent in ICU was shorter (median RP 24 vs. TP 46 hours, p = 0.0104), but duration of hospitalisation was longer for the RP-group (median RP 13 vs. TP 10.5 days, p = 0.0156). No differences were found in the need for analgesics, the frequency of procedure related complications, and post-operative recovery. Surgical repair of AAA in selected patients by tube graft placement is a safe procedure independent of the approach. In particular, our findings do not support previously reported superiority of the RP-approach.