Abdominal aortic aneursym: Stent graft vs clinical pathway for direct retroperitoneal repair

David A. Rigberg, Amir Dorafshar, Abiram Sridhar, William Quinones-Baldrich, Wesley S. Moore, Samuel Eric Wilson, Cornelius Olcott, James J. Peck, Jeffrey L. Ballard, Fred A. Waver

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Endovascular repair (EVAR), while not reducing mortality, has the advantages of reduced morbidity, shorter hospitalization, and quicker recovery when compared with open repair. These advantages must be balanced against increased cost, the risk of early- and late-onset endoleak, and the occasional need for secondary intervention or conversion to open repair. While continuing to offer EVAR, we have also developed a clinical pathway for open repair, which includes a retroperitoneal (RP) approach, nonroutine intensive care unit stay, no nasogastric tube, oral feedings beginning on the first postoperative day, and a hospital discharge between 3 and 5 days postoperatively. Hypothesis: Direct repair using the RP approach and a clinical pathway is competitive with EVAR. Method: Retrospective review of all RP and EVAR abdominal aortic aneursym procedures performed between January 2001 and December 2002. Results: Eighty-nine RP and 61 EVAR abdominal aortic aneursym repairs were performed. There were no deaths in either group. Conclusion: Results suggest that a clinical pathway including an RP approach resulted in a safe, effective, and rapid hospital discharge in most patients. While EVAR continues to yield a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications when compared with open repair, these benefits may be offset by the need for costly continual computed tomographic scan surveillance, the occasional need for late intervention or conversion to open repair, and the small but finite risk of late rupture.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)941-946
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Surgery
Volume139
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Critical Pathways
Stents
Transplants
Endoleak
Enteral Nutrition
Intensive Care Units
Rupture
Length of Stay
Hospitalization
Morbidity
Costs and Cost Analysis
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Rigberg, D. A., Dorafshar, A., Sridhar, A., Quinones-Baldrich, W., Moore, W. S., Wilson, S. E., ... Waver, F. A. (2004). Abdominal aortic aneursym: Stent graft vs clinical pathway for direct retroperitoneal repair. Archives of Surgery, 139(9), 941-946. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.139.9.941

Abdominal aortic aneursym : Stent graft vs clinical pathway for direct retroperitoneal repair. / Rigberg, David A.; Dorafshar, Amir; Sridhar, Abiram; Quinones-Baldrich, William; Moore, Wesley S.; Wilson, Samuel Eric; Olcott, Cornelius; Peck, James J.; Ballard, Jeffrey L.; Waver, Fred A.

In: Archives of Surgery, Vol. 139, No. 9, 09.2004, p. 941-946.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rigberg, DA, Dorafshar, A, Sridhar, A, Quinones-Baldrich, W, Moore, WS, Wilson, SE, Olcott, C, Peck, JJ, Ballard, JL & Waver, FA 2004, 'Abdominal aortic aneursym: Stent graft vs clinical pathway for direct retroperitoneal repair', Archives of Surgery, vol. 139, no. 9, pp. 941-946. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.139.9.941
Rigberg DA, Dorafshar A, Sridhar A, Quinones-Baldrich W, Moore WS, Wilson SE et al. Abdominal aortic aneursym: Stent graft vs clinical pathway for direct retroperitoneal repair. Archives of Surgery. 2004 Sep;139(9):941-946. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.139.9.941
Rigberg, David A. ; Dorafshar, Amir ; Sridhar, Abiram ; Quinones-Baldrich, William ; Moore, Wesley S. ; Wilson, Samuel Eric ; Olcott, Cornelius ; Peck, James J. ; Ballard, Jeffrey L. ; Waver, Fred A. / Abdominal aortic aneursym : Stent graft vs clinical pathway for direct retroperitoneal repair. In: Archives of Surgery. 2004 ; Vol. 139, No. 9. pp. 941-946.
@article{5467bbe5bf8e45b1a70a4788f2ff68f8,
title = "Abdominal aortic aneursym: Stent graft vs clinical pathway for direct retroperitoneal repair",
abstract = "Background: Endovascular repair (EVAR), while not reducing mortality, has the advantages of reduced morbidity, shorter hospitalization, and quicker recovery when compared with open repair. These advantages must be balanced against increased cost, the risk of early- and late-onset endoleak, and the occasional need for secondary intervention or conversion to open repair. While continuing to offer EVAR, we have also developed a clinical pathway for open repair, which includes a retroperitoneal (RP) approach, nonroutine intensive care unit stay, no nasogastric tube, oral feedings beginning on the first postoperative day, and a hospital discharge between 3 and 5 days postoperatively. Hypothesis: Direct repair using the RP approach and a clinical pathway is competitive with EVAR. Method: Retrospective review of all RP and EVAR abdominal aortic aneursym procedures performed between January 2001 and December 2002. Results: Eighty-nine RP and 61 EVAR abdominal aortic aneursym repairs were performed. There were no deaths in either group. Conclusion: Results suggest that a clinical pathway including an RP approach resulted in a safe, effective, and rapid hospital discharge in most patients. While EVAR continues to yield a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications when compared with open repair, these benefits may be offset by the need for costly continual computed tomographic scan surveillance, the occasional need for late intervention or conversion to open repair, and the small but finite risk of late rupture.",
author = "Rigberg, {David A.} and Amir Dorafshar and Abiram Sridhar and William Quinones-Baldrich and Moore, {Wesley S.} and Wilson, {Samuel Eric} and Cornelius Olcott and Peck, {James J.} and Ballard, {Jeffrey L.} and Waver, {Fred A.}",
year = "2004",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1001/archsurg.139.9.941",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "139",
pages = "941--946",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Abdominal aortic aneursym

T2 - Stent graft vs clinical pathway for direct retroperitoneal repair

AU - Rigberg, David A.

AU - Dorafshar, Amir

AU - Sridhar, Abiram

AU - Quinones-Baldrich, William

AU - Moore, Wesley S.

AU - Wilson, Samuel Eric

AU - Olcott, Cornelius

AU - Peck, James J.

AU - Ballard, Jeffrey L.

AU - Waver, Fred A.

PY - 2004/9

Y1 - 2004/9

N2 - Background: Endovascular repair (EVAR), while not reducing mortality, has the advantages of reduced morbidity, shorter hospitalization, and quicker recovery when compared with open repair. These advantages must be balanced against increased cost, the risk of early- and late-onset endoleak, and the occasional need for secondary intervention or conversion to open repair. While continuing to offer EVAR, we have also developed a clinical pathway for open repair, which includes a retroperitoneal (RP) approach, nonroutine intensive care unit stay, no nasogastric tube, oral feedings beginning on the first postoperative day, and a hospital discharge between 3 and 5 days postoperatively. Hypothesis: Direct repair using the RP approach and a clinical pathway is competitive with EVAR. Method: Retrospective review of all RP and EVAR abdominal aortic aneursym procedures performed between January 2001 and December 2002. Results: Eighty-nine RP and 61 EVAR abdominal aortic aneursym repairs were performed. There were no deaths in either group. Conclusion: Results suggest that a clinical pathway including an RP approach resulted in a safe, effective, and rapid hospital discharge in most patients. While EVAR continues to yield a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications when compared with open repair, these benefits may be offset by the need for costly continual computed tomographic scan surveillance, the occasional need for late intervention or conversion to open repair, and the small but finite risk of late rupture.

AB - Background: Endovascular repair (EVAR), while not reducing mortality, has the advantages of reduced morbidity, shorter hospitalization, and quicker recovery when compared with open repair. These advantages must be balanced against increased cost, the risk of early- and late-onset endoleak, and the occasional need for secondary intervention or conversion to open repair. While continuing to offer EVAR, we have also developed a clinical pathway for open repair, which includes a retroperitoneal (RP) approach, nonroutine intensive care unit stay, no nasogastric tube, oral feedings beginning on the first postoperative day, and a hospital discharge between 3 and 5 days postoperatively. Hypothesis: Direct repair using the RP approach and a clinical pathway is competitive with EVAR. Method: Retrospective review of all RP and EVAR abdominal aortic aneursym procedures performed between January 2001 and December 2002. Results: Eighty-nine RP and 61 EVAR abdominal aortic aneursym repairs were performed. There were no deaths in either group. Conclusion: Results suggest that a clinical pathway including an RP approach resulted in a safe, effective, and rapid hospital discharge in most patients. While EVAR continues to yield a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications when compared with open repair, these benefits may be offset by the need for costly continual computed tomographic scan surveillance, the occasional need for late intervention or conversion to open repair, and the small but finite risk of late rupture.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4444260161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4444260161&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archsurg.139.9.941

DO - 10.1001/archsurg.139.9.941

M3 - Article

C2 - 15381610

AN - SCOPUS:4444260161

VL - 139

SP - 941

EP - 946

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 9

ER -