Surgery today · 2023
Japanese single-center experience of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair over 20 years: should open or endovascular aneurysm repair be performed first?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yamanaka Katsuhiro, Hamaguchi Mari, Chomei Shunya, Inoue Taishi, Kono Atsunori, Tsujimoto Takanori, Koda Yojiro, Nakai Hidekazu, Omura Atsushi, Inoue Takeshi, Yamaguchi Masato, Sugimoto Koji, Okada Kenji
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The present study analyzed the outcomes of our experience with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair over 20 years using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with commercially available devices or open aortic repair (OAR) and reviewed our surgical strategy for AAA.
METHODS: From 1999 to 2019, 1077 patients (659 OAR, 418 EVAR) underwent AAA repair. The OAR and EVAR groups were compared retrospectively, and a propensity matching analysis was performed.
RESULTS: EVAR was first introduced in 2008. Our strategy was changed to an EVAR-first strategy in 2010. Beginning in 2018, this EVAR-first strategy was changed to an OAR-first strategy. After propensity matching, the overall survival in the OAR group was significantly better than that in the EVAR group at 10 years (p = 0.006). Two late deaths due to AAA rupture were identified in the EVAR group, although there were no significant differences between the OAR and EVAR groups with regard to the freedom from AAA-related death at 10 years. The rate of freedom from aortic events at 10 years was significantly higher in the OAR group than in the EVAR group (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The rates of freedom from AAA-related death in both the OAR and EVAR groups were favorable, and the rate of freedom from aortic events was significantly lower in the EVAR group than in the OAR group. Close long-term follow-up after EVAR is mandatory.
METHODS: From 1999 to 2019, 1077 patients (659 OAR, 418 EVAR) underwent AAA repair. The OAR and EVAR groups were compared retrospectively, and a propensity matching analysis was performed.
RESULTS: EVAR was first introduced in 2008. Our strategy was changed to an EVAR-first strategy in 2010. Beginning in 2018, this EVAR-first strategy was changed to an OAR-first strategy. After propensity matching, the overall survival in the OAR group was significantly better than that in the EVAR group at 10 years (p = 0.006). Two late deaths due to AAA rupture were identified in the EVAR group, although there were no significant differences between the OAR and EVAR groups with regard to the freedom from AAA-related death at 10 years. The rate of freedom from aortic events at 10 years was significantly higher in the OAR group than in the EVAR group (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The rates of freedom from AAA-related death in both the OAR and EVAR groups were favorable, and the rate of freedom from aortic events was significantly lower in the EVAR group than in the OAR group. Close long-term follow-up after EVAR is mandatory.