[Comparison of endovascular repair and open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm].
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness between conventional open repair (OR) and endovascular repair (EVRAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.


METHODS
Between March 2000 and July 2011, 48 cases of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were treated by conventional OR in 40 cases (OR group) or by EVRAR in 8 cases (EVRAR group). There was no significant difference in age, sex, the neck length (less than 2 cm), the neck angulation of aneurysm (more than 60 degrees), iliac severe tortuosity, preoperative systolic pressure, and preoperative comorbidity between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The blood transfusion volume, operation time, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative complications, reinterventions, and mortality were analyzed.


RESULTS
There was no significant difference in 24-hour and 30-day mortality rates and non graft-related complications between 2 groups (P > 0.05). EVRAR group was significantly better than OR group in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay (P < 0.05), but OR group was significantly better than EVRAR group in reinterventions and graft-related complications (P < 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
EVRAR has obvious advantages in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay, so it is feasible for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with precise anatomical suitability.
Department of Vascular Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, PR China.
Kun
K
Fan
Wei
W
Ren
D000368:Aged; D017544:Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal / Q000601:surgery*; D001019:Aortic Rupture / Q000601:surgery*; D001803:Blood Transfusion; D057510:Endovascular Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D016896:Treatment Outcome