title: Comparison of minimal incision aortic surgery with endovascular aortic repair.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Enthusiasm for endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has been tempered by midterm outcomes that raise valid concern about long-term durability.
  
  
  METHODS
  This article compares outcome data from a prospective nonrandomized comparison of a less-invasive open surgical repair technique-minimal incision aortic surgery (MIAS)-and EVAR.
  
  
  RESULTS
  MIAS and EVAR had comparable intensive care unit stays (1 day or less), quick return to general dietary feeding (2 days), and comparable hospital length of stay (4.8 days [3.4 days for uncomplicated cases MIAS] and 2.0 days for EVAR). Overall morbidity and mortality for MIAS and EVAR were comparable (18% versus 27%). MIAS was more cost effective than EVAR (net revenue MIAS = +8,445 US dollars, EVAR -7,263 US dollars).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  MIAS is a safe, cost-effective alternative to endovascular aortic repair.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital, 600 Highland Ave., G5/325, Madison, WI 53792, USA. turnip@surgery.wisc.edu
authors.forename: William
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Turnipseed
authors.forename: Girma
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Tefera
authors.forename: Sandra
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Carr
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D017544:Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal / Q000601:surgery*; D001157:Arterial Occlusive Diseases / Q000601:surgery*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007083:Iliac Artery; D007902:Length of Stay / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D008297:Male; D019060:Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; D011446:Prospective Studies; D014656:Vascular Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods