Aorto-iliac reconstruction with special reference to the extraperitoneal approach

Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The published trials comparing retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) aortic surgery show conflicting results. This is an update of the review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on mortality, complications, hospital stay and blood loss.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 30 November 2020. The review authors searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and handsearched reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the RP approach versus the TP approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. There were no restrictions on language or publication status.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreements through discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated a pooled estimate of treatment effect by calculating the mean difference (MD) and standard deviation (SD) with corresponding 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, unless we identified heterogeneity, in which case we used a random-effects model. We used GRADE to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. We evaluated the outcomes of mortality, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, blood loss, aortic cross-clamp time and operating time.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no new studies from the updated searches. After reassessment, we included one study which had previously been excluded. Five RCTs with a combined total of 152 participants are included. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low because of the low methodological quality of the included trials (unclear random sequence generation method and allocation concealment, and no blinding of outcome assessors), small sample sizes, small number of events, high heterogeneity and inconsistency between the included trials, no power calculations and relatively short follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.25; 3 studies, 110 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Similarly, there was no evidence of a difference in complications such as hematoma (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.48; 2 studies, 75 participants; very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (OR 10.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 211.78; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (OR 2.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 13.34; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence) between the RP and TP approaches in participants undergoing elective open AAA repair. The RP approach may reduce ICU stay (mean difference (MD) -19.02 hours, 95% CI -30.83 to -7.21; 3 studies, 106 participants; low-certainty evidence); hospital stay (MD -3.30 days, 95% CI -4.85 to-1.75; 5 studies, 152 participants; low-certainty evidence); and blood loss (MD -504.87 mL, 95% CI -779.19 to -230.56; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.69 min, 95% CI -7.23 to 8.60; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or operating time (MD -15.94 min, 95% CI -34.76 to 2.88; 4 studies, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low-certainty evidence from five small RCTs showed no clear evidence of a difference between the RP approach and the TP approach for elective open AAA repair in terms of mortality, or for rates of complications including hematoma (very low-certainty evidence), abdominal wall hernia (very low-certainty evidence), or chronic wound pain (very low-certainty evidence). However, a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter hospital stay was probably indicated following the RP approach compared to the TP approach (both low-certainty evidence). A possible reduction in blood loss was also shown after the RP approach (very low-certainty evidence). There is no clear difference between the RP approach and TP approach in aortic cross-clamp time or operating time. Further well-designed, large-scale RCTs assessing the RP approach versus TP approach for elective open AAA repair are required.

Retroperitoneal "Mini" Approach for Aortoiliac Reconstructive Surgery

The large vertical midline or transverse transperitoneal approaches used in the conven tional aortoiliac reconstruction are accompanied with a relatively high postoperative morbidity and mortality rate (2% to 5%), even in patients who are good risks under going aortic surgery. The purpose of this study was develop a new technique for aorto bifemoral bypass operation to minimize the operative stress on these patients.

Methods: The recommended left paramedian or transmuscular retroperitoneal approach, using 5-6 cm skin incision and a special retractor with three-dimensional vision and with modified surgical instruments directly under eye control, offers the possibility of decreasing the operative stress significantly and of sufficiently controlling the serious bleeding that might occur. If necessary, this exposure can be immediately converted to a conventional approach by simple enlargement of the incision.

Results: In the authors' first cases the functional results were very good, and conse quently, hospitalization time and the convalescence period were short.

Conclusion: This minimal access approach appears to diminish the catabolic response, and it is hoped that it will be associated with accelerated recovery and virtual abolition of large wound-related complications. It could become the procedure of choice for selected patients with obstructive or aneurysmal aortoiliac disease.

Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

There has been extensive debate in the surgical literature regarding the optimum surgical access approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta during an operation to repair an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The published trials comparing retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) aortic surgery show conflicting results.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair on mortality, complications, hospital stay and blood loss.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched May 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 4) and trials databases (May 2015). The review authors searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and other resources including clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the TP approach versus the RP approach for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. We evaluated the outcomes of mortality, complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, blood loss, aortic cross-clamp time and operating time. Two review authors independently selected RCTs against the inclusion criteria. We resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias according to a standard quality checklist provided by Cochrane Vascular.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs, with a combined total of 129 participants, that assessed the TP approach versus the RP approach for elective open AAA repair. The overall quality of the evidence was low to very low because of the low methodological quality of the included trials (unclear random sequence generation method and allocation concealment, and no blinding of outcome assessors), small sample sizes, small number of events, high heterogeneity and inconsistency between the included trials, no power calculations and relatively short follow-up. There were no differences between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.25; 110 participants; four trials; P = 0.49; I² statistic = 0%; very low quality evidence). However, the RP approach may increase complications, such as hematoma (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.48; 75 participants; two trials; P = 0.92; very low quality evidence), chronic wound pain (OR 2.20, 95% CI 0.36 to 13.34; 48 participants; one trial; P = 0.39; very low quality evidence) and abdominal wall hernia (OR 10.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 211.78; 48 participants; one trial; P = 0.12; very low quality evidence) compared with the TP approach in the patients for elective open AAA repair, but the confidence intervals (CIs) were wide. The RP approach reduced the blood loss (mean difference (MD) -504.87 mL, 95% CI -779.19 to -230.56; 129 participants; four trials; P = 0.003; very low quality evidence), ICU stay (MD -19.00 hours, 95% CI -31.41 to -6.59; 83 participants; two trials; P = 0.003; low quality evidence) and hospital stay (MD -3.14 days, 95% CI -4.82 to -1.45; 129 participants; four trials; P = 0.0003; low quality evidence). There were no differences between the RP approach and the TP approach regarding aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.69 mins, 95% CI -7.23 to 8.60; 129 participants; four trials; P = 0.86; very low quality evidence) and operating time (MD -15.94 mins, 95% CI -34.76 to 2.88; 129 participants; four trials; P = 0.10; very low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low quality evidence from four small RCTs indicates that the RP approach did not have advantages over the TP approach for elective open AAA repair in terms of mortality. Moreover, the RP approach may increase the risk of postoperative wound complications although the CIs were wide.Low quality evidence shows that the RP approach could reduce blood loss, hospital stay and ICU stay compared with the TP approach. Very low quality evidence shows no differences between the RP approach and TP approaches in aortic cross-clamp time and operating time.Further large-scale RCTs of the RP approach versus TP approach for elective open AAA repair are required.

Preoperative and Intraoperative Determinants of Incisional Bulge following Retroperitoneal Aortic Repair

Although the left flank retroperitoneal incision is a useful approach for many patients undergoing major aortic reconstruction for aneurysmal and occlusive disease, it has been associated with weakening of the flank muscles, resulting in bulges varying from slight asymmetry to huge hernias. The purpose of this study was to determine if the incidence of this complication correlated with identifiable preoperative or intraoperative factors. Fifty consecutive patients undergoing aortic reconstruction via the retroperitoneal approach were followed for 1 year postoperatively for evidence of disfiguring bulges. Bulges were scored as follows: normal/mild, <1-inch protrusion; moderate, protrusion 1-2 inches; severe, protrusion >2 inches and/or pain or true herniation. Preoperatively, patients were administered a questionnaire to elicit demographic and comorbidity data. Fifty-six percent of patients developed a bulge at 1 year. In 43% of these, the bulge was deemed mild and in 54% moderate. One patient developed a severe bulge. Among preoperative comorbidities, no statistically significant correlations were found on bivariate analysis. However, likelihood ratios for bulge development of 5.5 for renal disease and 3.1 for cancer were demonstrated. Conversely, peripheral vascular disease had a likelihood ratio of 0.21 for bulge formation and emphysema, 0.28. On logistic analysis, incision >15 cm and body mass index (BMI) >23 mg/kg(2) were found to correlate strongly with bulge formation (p=0.003, odds ratio=9.1, and p=0.018, odds ratio=16.9, respectively). Together, these yielded a pseudo r (2) of 0.32. BMI >23 mg/kg(2 )was found to yield the greatest explanatory power. These same two variables were found to correlate with severity of bulge: p=0.02 for incision>5 cm and p=0.006 for BMI >23. Of note, gender, age, and extension of the incision into the interspace were not significant on logistic analysis. Preoperatively, surgeons should warn obese patients and those requiring large incisions for extensive disease of their increased risk for poor healing. Intraoperatively, surgeons should aim to minimize incision length.

Vias de acesso transperitoneal e retroperitoneal em cirurgia de aorta: resultados comparativos a longo prazo

OBJETIVO: A via de acesso mais utilizada à aorta abdominal para correção da doença obstrutiva ou aneurismática é a transperitoneal, sendo que a retroperitoneal é muitas vezes apontada como causando menos complicações. O objetivo deste estudo é comparar as duas vias no tocante às complicações tardias. MÉTODO: Para comparação da evolução tardia, foram estudados 96 pacientes retrospectivamente, sendo 81 portadores de aneurisma e 15 de doença aorto-ilíaca. A via retroperitoneal foi usada em 43 pacientes, e a transperitoneal, em 53. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferença entre as ocorrências de hérnia incisional, flacidez de parede abdominal e ejaculação retrógrada. CONCLUSÕES: Não foram observadas diferenças entre os dois tipos de acesso quanto aos parâmetros considerados na avaliação tardia.

Retroperitoneal aortoiliac reconstruction

The retroperitoneal approach to the aorta and the iliac arteries provides excellent exposure for reconstruction of these vessels for aortoiliac occlusive disease. Furthermore, the weight of evidence in the literature indicates that this approach is associated with fewer complications, a shorter length of stay in the hospital, and lower costs. The major drawback to this approach at present appears to be a lack of familiarity with the technical aspects of this exposure. It is our hope that this article helps familiarize surgeons with this exposure and encourages them to use it more frequently for "routine" aortoiliac reconstruction.

Transabdominal versus retroperitoneal incision for abdominal aortic surgery: report of a prospective randomized trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to perform a randomized, prospective trial that compares the transabdominal with the retroperitoneal approach to the aorta for routine infrarenal aortic reconstruction.

METHODS

From August 1990 through November 1993, patients undergoing surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) disease or aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) were asked to participate in a randomized trial comparing the transabdominal incision (TAI) to the retroperitoneal incision (RPI) for aortic surgery. One hundred forty-five patients were randomized, with 75 (41 with AAA and 34 with AIOD) in the TAI group and 70 (40 with AAA and 30 with AIOD) in the RPI group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, sex, postoperative pain control (epidural vs patient-controlled analgesia), or comorbid conditions, except for a higher incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the TAI group (21 vs 8 patients).

RESULTS

The incidence of intraoperative complications was similar for both groups. After surgery, the incidence of prolonged ileus (p = 0.013) and small bowel obstruction (p = 0.05) was higher in the TAI group. Overall, the RPI group had significantly fewer complications (p < 0.0001). The overall postoperative mortality rate (two deaths) was 1.4%, with both occurring in the TAI group (p = 0.507). The RPI group also had significantly shorter stays in the intensive care unit (p = 0.006), a trend toward shorter hospitalization (p = 0.10), lower total hospital charges (p = 0.019), and lower total hospital costs (p = 0.017). There was no difference in pulmonary complications (p = 0.71). In long-term follow-up (mean 23 months), the RPI group reported more incisional pain (p = 0.056), but no difference was found in incisional hernias or bulges (p = 0.297).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the RPI approach for abdominal aortic surgery is associated with fewer postoperative complications, shorter stays in the hospital and intensive care unit, and lower cost. There is, however, an increase in long-term incisional pain. Current methods of postoperative pain control seem to decrease the incidence of pulmonary complications.

Retroperitoneal approach used exclusively with epidural anesthesia for infrarenal aortic disease

BACKGROUND

The retroperitoneal approach for elective infrarenal aortic procedures is an attractive alternative to the standard transperitoneal approach. In an effort to limit the number of extraneous influences on patient outcome, this approach was performed using epidural anesthesia without the use of endotracheal intubation or general anesthesia.

METHODS

From June 1991 through July 1993, 62 consecutive patients with aorto-occlusive or aorto-iliac disease underwent infrarenal aortic repair using the retroperitoneal approach. Epidural anesthesia was used exclusively in all cases. Patients were evaluated for age, sex, comorbid conditions, morbidity, operating time, blood loss, ileus, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

There were 29 aortobiiliac bypasses, 18 aortobifemoral bypasses, and 15 aortic tube grafts. Three patients had an associated renal artery procedure performed. There were 48 men and 14 women. The average age was 74.2 years (range 30 to 88). Comorbid conditions including smoking (69%), coronary artery disease (61%), hypertension (61%), prior myocardial infarction (43%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (35%), prior surgery (27%), diabetes mellitus (24%), and a history of cancer (8%) were identified. The average length of surgery was 2 hours and 10 minutes (range 1 hour 20 minutes to 3 hours 15 minutes). The average blood loss was 510 mL (range 200 to 4,000). A nasogastric tube was not used in any patient perioperatively, and oral feeding was started on average by postoperative day 2. The average intensive care unit stay was 1.3 days (range 1 to 7). A mortality rate of 1.6%, and major complication rate of 11% were found. None were of pulmonary nature, which may be ascribed to the absence of endotracheal intubation or general anesthesia. A minor complication rate of 19% was achieved under the presented method. The average hospital stay was 7.7 days (range 5 to 15).

CONCLUSION

No large series using the retroperitoneal approach exclusively under epidural anesthesia has been reported. Recent literature on the retroperitoneal approach makes use of general anesthesia with/without epidural anesthesia. This review supports our contention that the procedure of choice for elective infrarenal aortic surgery is the retroperitoneal approach utilizing epidural anesthesia in the absence of endotracheal intubation and general anesthesia. There is a decrease in the physiologic disturbances associated with general anesthesia, notably pulmonary and gastrointestinal, when only epidural anesthesia is used. This translated into a low complication rate, improved patient comfort, early hospital discharge, and subsequent lower costs.

Risberg retroperitoneal approach to the abdominal aorta

In a study of the best approach to the infrarenal abdominal aorta, 47 patients were compared retrospectively: 15 underwent a standard transperitoneal incision, 15 a retroperitoneal left flank incision and 17 a new modified lateral pararectus incision, the Risberg approach. Operating time, length of postoperative intubation and hospital stay, mortality rate, morbidity rate and cost were assessed. There was a significant reduction (P < 0.05) in mean(s.d.) operating time (141(21) versus 198(41) min), intraoperative cross-clamping time (74(13) versus 104(46) min) and postoperative intubation time (6.5(8.0) versus 13.3(7.3) h) associated with the Risberg retroperitoneal incision compared with the left flank retroperitoneal route. There was also a significant decrease (P < 0.02) in mean(s.d.) postoperative intubation time (6.5(8.0) versus 17.5(12.0) h), time after operation to discharge (11.0(2.4) versus 17.3(7.6) days) and hospital cost (4885(670) pounds versus 7732(580)) pounds associated with the Risberg incision compared with the transperitoneal approach. The Risberg incision gives better access to the infrarenal abdominal aorta while maintaining the advantages of other retroperitoneal approaches. This technique is recommended as the incision of choice for the retroperitoneal approach to the aorta.

Infrarenal abdominal aortic disease: a review of the retroperitoneal approach

Transabdominal exposure is the most widely used surgical approach to the infrarenal aorta. Over the last 30 years a number of surgeons have championed the retroperitoneal approach for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms and aortoiliac occlusive disease using a variety of incisions. Several studies attest to the clinical superiority of this approach over the transabdominal route and recent evidence demonstrates reduced physiological disturbance with this technique. The retroperitoneal approach is suitable for all elective operations on the abdominal aorta, particularly in patients with high-risk aneurysms and in selected patients with symptomatic and ruptured aneurysms.

Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

We, as well as other authors, believe that the retroperitoneal approach is an excellent alternative to the transperitoneal route for the repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. This approach is associated with a significant decrease in pulmonary and cardiac complications and therefore can be used in selected high-risk patients with expanding aneurysms. A well-controlled randomized multicenter trial should answer the question: "Is this approach the surgical access of choice for the elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms?"

Transabdominal or retroperitoneal approach to the aorto-iliac tract: a pulmonary function study

An unselected consecutive series of 30 males, receiving an aorto-bifemoral Dacron graft for occlusive arterial disease, were randomised preoperatively to a transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach. Pulmonary function tests (Forced Vital Capacity--Forced Expiratory Volume at 1 s) were performed once preoperatively and repeated four times postoperatively. As far as pulmonary function tests are concerned the results clearly demonstrated the superiority of the retroperitoneal to the transperitoneal approach. It is therefore recommended that the extraperitoneal approach should be used more frequently in reconstructive aorto-ilio-femoral surgery.

Extraperitoneal approach for aortoiliac reconstruction of the abdominal aorta

The extraperitoneal approach is not usually used for reconstruction of the abdominal aorta; however, herein we have made an attempt to influence vascular surgeons to modify this practice. The results in 200 patients approached extraperitoneally have been compared with those of 70 patients explored by the traditional transperitoneal route. The expeditious technique of extraperitoneal exploration described results in significantly less postoperative morbidity due to the pulmonary complications of atelectasis and pneumonia. Intestinal ileus is uniformly brief, and rarely requires nasogastric suction. Patients explored extraperitoneally have demonstrably less pain and were discharged from the hospital sooner. Furthermore, prosthetic graft patency and mortality were comparable in both groups. Thus, the retroperitoneal approach should be the preferred method of aortoiliac reconstruction since the postoperative convalescence period is smoother and shorter.

Endarterectomy of the upper abdominal aorta and visceral arteries through an extraperitoneal approach

Surgical access to the upper abdominal aorta and renal arteries remains technically difficult. We describe a retroperitoneal approach to the suprarenal aorta and renal arteries through the left flank. Using this approach, which is exclusively infradiaphragmatic, we have operated on 11 patients with complex occlusive lesions of the renal arteries and upper abdominal aorta. This technique has been associated with no patient death and a minimal morbidity rate in our experience thus far. The advantages of the approach are shortened operative time, ease of exposure and postoperative decrease in ileus and respiratory complications. Use of this technique facilitates surgical treatment of patients with occlusive disease of the upper abdominal aorta and its branches.