Objective To analyze and compare the clinical efficacies of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgery repair (OSR) in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Methods The clinical data of 271 patients with AAA who received surgery at the First Hospital of China Medical University between January 2004 and December 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Of the 271 patients, 153 patients undergoing EVAR were allocated into the EVAR group and 118 patients undergoing OSR into the OSR group, respectively. All the patients underwent a primary screening of preoperative ultrasonography and were diagnosed by three-dimensional computed tomography angiography (CTA), then urgent and severe patients were confirmed by abdominal enhanced CT. The procedures of EVAR: guide wire was inserted into the abdominal arota from femoral artery incision and branched stent was placed. The procedures of OSR: AAA was resected by median abdominal incision, thrombi and sclerosis plaques in endovascular wall were cleared, and end-to-end abdominal aortic anastomosis and end-to-side iliac aortic anastomosis were performed using Y-shaped blood vessel prosthesis. All the patients were followed up by telephone interview up to December 31, 2014. The operation situation, complications at postoperative day 30, short-term complications (between postoperative 3 months and 3 years), medium- and long-term complications (more than postoperative 3 years), mortality and survival rate were observed. Measurement data with normal distribution were presented as ±s and analyzed using the t test, and count data were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher exact probability. Survival curve was drawn by the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival rate was analyzed using the Log-rank test. Results All the patients were confirmed as with AAA by preoperative three-dimensional CTA. The operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, volume of intraoperative blood transfusion, time for out-off-bed activity, duration of hospital stay and hospital expenses were (179±64)minutes, (79±36)mL, 0, (5.7±3.1)days, (12±6)days, (179 018±65 796)yuan in the EVAR group and (205±40)minutes, (402±297)mL, (410±367)mL, (8.3±2.1)days, (18±11)days, (77 853±21 164)yuan in the OSR group, with significant differences between the 2 groups (t=-32.464, -51.719, -294.350, -11.833, -10.957, 2 778.748, P 0.05). The number of patients complicated with postoperative heart failure and I-shaped inner leakage were 0 and 8 in the EVAR group and 4 and 0 in the OSR group, with a significant difference between the 2 groups (P 0.05). The number of patients complicated with chest pain and abdominal distension were 0 and 0 in the EVAR group and 4 and 4 in the OSR group, with a significant difference between the 2 groups (P 0.05). The 3-, 5-, 10-year survival rates in the EVAR group and in the OSR group were 94.35%, 89.52%, 60.48% and 93.33%, 91.42%, 69.52%, respectively, showing no significant difference between the 2 groups (χ2=0.103, 0.239, 2.033, P>0.05). Conclusion EVAR has an advantage of micro-invasion in perioperative management, and both of EVAR and OSR are effective for the treatment of AAA with equivalent incidence of complications and long-term survival rate. Key words: Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Endovascular aneurysm repair; Open surgery; Efficacy
Read full abstract