Comparison of minimal incision aortic surgery with endovascular aortic repair.
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.
Turnipseed
William
W
Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin Hospital, 600 Highland Ave., G5/325, Madison, WI 53792, USA. turnip@surgery.wisc.edu
Tefera
Girma
G
Carr
Sandra
S
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