为什么开放手术修复仍然是必要的:韩国三级转诊中心对破裂腹主动脉瘤血管内修复的适用性的见解。

IF 1 Q4 Medicine
Sang Yoon Kim, Dong Kyu Yoon, Jae Hang Lee, Hyoung Woo Chang, Kay-Hyun Park
{"title":"为什么开放手术修复仍然是必要的:韩国三级转诊中心对破裂腹主动脉瘤血管内修复的适用性的见解。","authors":"Sang Yoon Kim, Dong Kyu Yoon, Jae Hang Lee, Hyoung Woo Chang, Kay-Hyun Park","doi":"10.5090/jcs.24.116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several studies have demonstrated that emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) has become the standard treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) compared to open surgical repair (OSR). This study investigated the feasibility of eEVAR in rAAA patients and analyzed the outcomes of OSR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>At our institution, all patients (n=58) presenting with rAAA underwent OSR. We conducted a retrospective review of surgically treated rAAA patients between February 2006 and March 2021. Patients with impending rupture or isolated iliac aneurysm rupture were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Anatomic measurements based on preoperative computed tomography indicated that 28 patients (48.3%) could have been candidates for eEVAR. Reasons for unsuitability included: (1) proximal neck length <10 mm (n=21, 51.7%); (2) proximal neck angulation >60° (n=11, 19.0%); (3) iliac artery diameter <5 mm (n=6, 10.3%); and (4) proximal neck diameter >32 mm (n=3, 5.2%). The 30-day mortality rate for OSR was 17.2% (n=10). The 1-year and 5-year survival rates were 53.4%±6.5% and 33.4%±6.3%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that a high preoperative serum lactate level (>5 mmol/L) and the presence of bowel ischemia were significant risk factors for 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 11.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-93.08; p<0.018; and OR, 15.28; 95% CI, 1.60-146.18; p<0.018, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More than half of rAAA patients were not candidates for eEVAR due to various anatomical reasons. OSR demonstrated favorable short- and long-term outcomes and remains a viable standard treatment for rAAA.</p>","PeriodicalId":34499,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chest Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Open Surgical Repair Remains Essential: Insights into the Suitability of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms from a Tertiary Referral Center in South Korea.\",\"authors\":\"Sang Yoon Kim, Dong Kyu Yoon, Jae Hang Lee, Hyoung Woo Chang, Kay-Hyun Park\",\"doi\":\"10.5090/jcs.24.116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several studies have demonstrated that emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) has become the standard treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) compared to open surgical repair (OSR). This study investigated the feasibility of eEVAR in rAAA patients and analyzed the outcomes of OSR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>At our institution, all patients (n=58) presenting with rAAA underwent OSR. We conducted a retrospective review of surgically treated rAAA patients between February 2006 and March 2021. Patients with impending rupture or isolated iliac aneurysm rupture were excluded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Anatomic measurements based on preoperative computed tomography indicated that 28 patients (48.3%) could have been candidates for eEVAR. Reasons for unsuitability included: (1) proximal neck length <10 mm (n=21, 51.7%); (2) proximal neck angulation >60° (n=11, 19.0%); (3) iliac artery diameter <5 mm (n=6, 10.3%); and (4) proximal neck diameter >32 mm (n=3, 5.2%). The 30-day mortality rate for OSR was 17.2% (n=10). The 1-year and 5-year survival rates were 53.4%±6.5% and 33.4%±6.3%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that a high preoperative serum lactate level (>5 mmol/L) and the presence of bowel ischemia were significant risk factors for 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 11.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-93.08; p<0.018; and OR, 15.28; 95% CI, 1.60-146.18; p<0.018, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More than half of rAAA patients were not candidates for eEVAR due to various anatomical reasons. OSR demonstrated favorable short- and long-term outcomes and remains a viable standard treatment for rAAA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34499,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Chest Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Chest Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.24.116\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chest Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.24.116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:多项研究表明,与开放式手术修复(OSR)相比,急诊血管内动脉瘤修复(eEVAR)已成为腹主动脉瘤破裂(rAAA)的标准治疗方法。本研究探讨了eEVAR在rAAA患者中的可行性,并分析了OSR的结果。方法:在我院,所有出现rAAA的患者(n=58)均行OSR。我们对2006年2月至2021年3月期间接受手术治疗的rAAA患者进行了回顾性研究。排除即将破裂或孤立性髂动脉瘤破裂的患者。结果:基于术前计算机断层扫描的解剖测量显示28例(48.3%)患者可能是eEVAR的候选者。不适宜的原因包括:(1)颈近端长度60°(n=11, 19.0%);(3)髂动脉内径32 mm (n=3, 5.2%)。OSR的30天死亡率为17.2% (n=10)。1年和5年生存率分别为53.4%±6.5%和33.4%±6.3%。多变量logistic回归分析显示,术前高血清乳酸水平(>5 mmol/L)和肠缺血是30天死亡率的重要危险因素(优势比[OR], 11.95;95%置信区间[CI], 1.53-93.08;结论:由于各种解剖原因,半数以上的rAAA患者不适合进行eEVAR。OSR显示出良好的短期和长期结果,仍然是rAAA的可行标准治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Open Surgical Repair Remains Essential: Insights into the Suitability of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms from a Tertiary Referral Center in South Korea.

Background: Several studies have demonstrated that emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) has become the standard treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) compared to open surgical repair (OSR). This study investigated the feasibility of eEVAR in rAAA patients and analyzed the outcomes of OSR.

Methods: At our institution, all patients (n=58) presenting with rAAA underwent OSR. We conducted a retrospective review of surgically treated rAAA patients between February 2006 and March 2021. Patients with impending rupture or isolated iliac aneurysm rupture were excluded.

Results: Anatomic measurements based on preoperative computed tomography indicated that 28 patients (48.3%) could have been candidates for eEVAR. Reasons for unsuitability included: (1) proximal neck length <10 mm (n=21, 51.7%); (2) proximal neck angulation >60° (n=11, 19.0%); (3) iliac artery diameter <5 mm (n=6, 10.3%); and (4) proximal neck diameter >32 mm (n=3, 5.2%). The 30-day mortality rate for OSR was 17.2% (n=10). The 1-year and 5-year survival rates were 53.4%±6.5% and 33.4%±6.3%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that a high preoperative serum lactate level (>5 mmol/L) and the presence of bowel ischemia were significant risk factors for 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 11.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-93.08; p<0.018; and OR, 15.28; 95% CI, 1.60-146.18; p<0.018, respectively).

Conclusion: More than half of rAAA patients were not candidates for eEVAR due to various anatomical reasons. OSR demonstrated favorable short- and long-term outcomes and remains a viable standard treatment for rAAA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Chest Surgery
Journal of Chest Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信