Journal of vascular surgery
-
Comparative Study
Historic control comparison of outcome for matched groups of patients undergoing endoluminal versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Currently no randomized studies show the relative morbidity and mortality of the open and endoluminal methods of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome of two matched groups of patients with AAA, one undergoing open repair and the other undergoing endoluminal repair. ⋯ The incidence of systemic/remote complications was similar for the two groups in spite of significantly less blood loss and shorter intensive care unit stay with endoluminal repair. The incidence of local/vascular complications had a tendency to be higher for endoluminal compared with standard open method (and was significantly greater if failed procedures were included). In this early experience with prototype devices, patients who were medically suitable for open surgical procedures did not derive benefit from the less invasive endoluminal technique with respect to duration of operation, length of hospital stay, or perioperative morbidity and mortality. On the other hand, because they also did not have worse outcome, a randomized study is now justified in this group.
-
Comparative Study
Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in Veterans Affairs medical centers.
This study was performed to define outcomes after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair in Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers during fiscal years 1991 through 1993. ⋯ Mortality rates after AAA repair in VA hospitals were comparable with those previously reported in other large series. Outcomes for veterans with AAA may improve by referring patients eligible for elective repair to VA medical centers with a greater operative volume or to lower-volume centers that have had excellent results.
-
We developed a monitoring system to detect spinal cord ischemia during aortic cross-clamping (AXC). This system was used to prospectively determine in which patients ischemia occurs, in which patients reimplantation of intercostal arteries is unnecessary or mandatory, and when reperfusion of intercostal arteries (ICAs) is urgent. ⋯ The risk of ischemic spinal cord injury during replacement for TAA can be assessed continuously by monitoring the sSSEP directly from the spinal cord. Patients without sSSEP changes during aortic reconstruction do not require ICA reattachment and will not have neurologic deficit. Patients who lose sSSEP after AXC are at risk for paraplegia. Patients with impairment or loss of sSSEP >15 minutes after AXC have some collateral vessels, and must have ICAs reimplanted only if sSSEP do not return within normal recovery time after blood-flow release into the proximal anastomosis. Loss of sSSEP within 15 minutes of AXC shows poor collateralization and mandates early restoration of spinal cord blood supply. If the surgeon can achieve the return of sSSEP to normal by subsequent separate reimplantation of ICAS, paraplegia will not occur and paraparesis will be rare and mild. Spinal cord monitoring is a valuable guide to detect whether the spinal cord is at risk and to take measures against par