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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 941-946 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Archives of Surgery |
| Volume | 139 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Sep 2004 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Surgery
Cite this
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 journal › Article
}
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 -