Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Retroperitoneal versus the Transperitoneal Approach to the Abdominal Aorta

Long-term results of endovascular versus open retroperitoneal repair associated with ERAS protocol for abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Although the endovascular management of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is widely performed, many studies have shown better long-term results with open graft repairing, mostly focusing on the classical open repair with midline access. This study aims to evaluate long-term results comparing EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) and surgical open repair with retroperitoneal access associated with ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 156 patients treated for AAA between 2015 and 2018 was conducted. Clinical and demographic characteristics of the two groups were homogeneous except for age, which was significantly higher in patients belonging to the EVAR one, and for previous laparotomies. A total of 100 patients (58.7%) underwent open retroperitoneal repair (ORR group), and 56 (42.3%) underwent EVAR. A mean of 51 ± 28 months of follow-up was conducted. This study aims to evaluate long-term survival by comparing EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) and surgical open repair with retroperitoneal access associated with ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol. Secondary aims evaluate differences between the two techniques regarding late complications, need for re-interventions, and perioperative results.

RESULTS

Freedom from all-cause mortality, calculated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves equalizing the two population with a Covariate Propensity Score, showed significant better survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years in ORRs then in EVARs. Late complications (>30 days) and need for late re-intervention rates were greater in the EVAR group (6 late re-interventions needed vs 0 in the ORR group).Perioperative results show longer mean length of hospital stay in patients belonging to the ORR group (5 days vs 2) and significantly higher in-hospital-complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term comparison between EVAR and open retroperitoneal repair shows significantly better late outcomes in the ORR group. The perioperative course appears significantly better in EVARs but anyway good in ORRs when a perioperative protocol as ERAS is applied.In a selected population of young patients fit for surgery, the retroperitoneal surgical approach should be highly taken into account in the therapeutical choice.

Utility of Continuous Paravertebral Block After Retroperitoneal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repairs can be associated with significant pain and morbidity. Previous studies have demonstrated utility of adjunctive epidural analgesia (EA) in addition to general anesthesia (GA) to reduce pain and blunt the maladaptive surgical stress response. However, EA may be complicated by epidural hematomas and severe hypotension. Recently, we started using continuous paravertebral block (PVB) for perioperative analgesia after retroperitoneal AAA repair. PVB has some distinct advantages over EA such as unilateral localization, reduced risk of hypotension, and minimal risk of epidural hematoma in the setting of systemic heparinization. This study aimed to examine the utility of PVB by comparing total opioid consumption in the postoperative period among patients who received GA + PVB and those who received GA alone.

METHODS

This retrospective matched cohort study included 62 patients who underwent elective retroperitoneal AAA repair between January 2019 and August 2022. Thirty-one subjects managed with GA + PVB were compared with 31 control subjects treated with GA alone, matched on following criteria: age, sex, and cross-clamp location. Outcome measures included total opioid analgesics administered during their inhospital postoperative course, time to extubation, time to return to baseline activity, time to normal bowel function, and length of stay. Opioid doses were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs).

RESULTS

The GA + PVB group required significantly less opioid analgesics (81 ± 53 MME) than the GA group (171 ± 121 MME) (P < 0.001). Compared to GA alone, GA + PVB was superior in every clinical metric examined: time to extubation (3 vs. 1 hr, P < 0.001), recovery of bowel function (3 vs. 2 days, P = 0.002), recovery of baseline physical activity (4 vs. 2 days, P = 0.019), and length of stay (5 vs. 3 days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous paravertebral block provides better pain management with significantly decreased opioid requirements in the postoperative period compared to GA-alone for patients undergoing elective retroperitoneal AAA repair.

Benefits of Prehabilitation before Complex Aortic Surgery

The purpose of this narrative review was to detail and discuss the underlying principles and benefits of preoperative interventions addressing risk factors for perioperative adverse events in open aortic surgery (OAS). The term "complex aortic disease" encompasses juxta/pararenal aortic and thoraco-abdominal aneurysms, chronic aortic dissection and occlusive aorto-iliac pathology. Although endovascular surgery has been increasingly favored, OAS remains a durable option, but by necessity involves extensive surgical approaches and aortic cross-clamping and requires a trained multidisciplinary team. The physiological stress of OAS in a fragile and comorbid patient group mandates thoughtful preoperative risk assessment and the implementation of measures dedicated to improving outcomes. Cardiac and pulmonary complications are one of the most frequent adverse events following major OAS and their incidences are correlated to the patient's functional status and previous comorbidities. Prehabilitation should be considered in patients with risk factors for pulmonary complications including advanced age, previous chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and congestive heart failure with the aid of pulmonary function tests. It should also be combined with other measures to improve postoperative course and be included in the more general concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). Although the current level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of ERAS in the setting of OAS remains low, an increasing body of literature has promoted its implementation in other specialties. Consequently, vascular teams should commit to improving the current evidence through studies to make ERAS the standard of care for OAS.

Exposure of the Lumbosacral Plexus by Using the Pararectus Approach: A Technical Note

BACKGROUND

Surgical exploration of the lumbosacral plexus is challenging. Previously described approaches reach from invasive open techniques with osteotomy of the ilium to laparoscopic techniques.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a novel surgical technique to explore lumbosacral plexopathies such as benign nerve tumors or iatrogenic lesions of the lumbosacral plexus in 4 case examples.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 4 patients suffering from pathologies or injuries of the lumbosacral plexus between 2017 and 2019. The mean follow-up period after surgery was 23.5 (range 11-52) months. All patients underwent neurolysis of the lumbosacral plexus using the single incision, intrapelvic, extraperitoneal pararectus approach.

RESULTS

In all patients, the pathology of the lumbosacral plexus was successfully visualized, proving feasibility of the extraperitoneal pararectus approach for this indication. There were no major complications, and all patients recovered well.

CONCLUSION

The pararectus approach allows excellent visualization of the lumbar plexus and intrapelvic lesions of the femoral and sciatic nerves.

Retroperitoneal Compared to Transperitoneal Approach for Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Is Associated with Reduced Systemic Inflammation and Postoperative Morbidity

BACKGROUND

 In the United Kingdom, the most common surgical approach for repair of open abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is transperitoneal (TP). However, retroperitoneal (RP) approach is favored in those with more complex vascular anatomy often requiring a cross-clamp on the aorta superior to the renal arteries. This study compared these approaches in patients matched on all major demographic, comorbid, anatomic, and physiological variables.

METHODS

 Fifty-seven patients (TP: n = 24; RP: n = 33) unsuitable for endovascular aneurysm repair underwent preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing prior to open AAA repair. The surgical approach undertaken was dictated by individual surgeon preference. Postoperative mortality, complications, and length of hospital stay (LoS) were recorded. Patients were further stratified according to infrarenal (IR) or suprarenal/supraceliac (SR/SC) surgical clamping. Systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein) and renal function (serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate) were recorded.

RESULTS

 Twenty-three (96%) of TP patients only required an IR clamp compared with 12 (36%) in the RP group. Postoperative systemic inflammation was lower in RP patients (p = 0.002 vs. TP) and fewer reported pulmonary/gastrointestinal complications whereas renal impairment was more marked in those receiving SR/SC clamps (p < 0.001 vs. IR clamp). RP patients were defined by lower LoS (p = 0.001), while mid-/long-term mortality was low/comparable with TP, resulting in considerable cost savings.

CONCLUSION

 Despite the demands of more complicated vascular anatomy, the clinical and economic benefits highlighted by these findings justify the more routine adoption of the RP approach for complex AAA repair.

Ileus rate after abdominal wall reconstruction: a retrospective analysis of two clinical trials

PURPOSE

Postoperative ileus (POI) is the paralytic disruption of gastrointestinal motility, a common complication following abdominal wall reconstruction that often leads to increased patient morbidity and length of stay (LOS). We reviewed two randomized clinical trials to determine POI rates, predictive factors, LOS, and associated cost.

METHODS

Two randomized trials were performed from 2017-2019 with all patients receiving elective open abdominal wall reconstruction with retromuscular mesh. Using multivariate logistic regression, we performed a retrospective analysis including demographics and operative details from patients at a single site to determine predictive factors for POI. All medical costs encompassing surgery and the 30-day postoperative period were compared between ileus and non-ileus groups.

RESULTS

Four hundred and seventy patients were reviewed with a POI rate of 13.0% (N = 61). There were no differences in age, body mass index (BMI), history of abdominal surgery, or comorbidities between patients with and without POI. Logistic regression showed no association with POI and age, BMI, hernia width, or operative time lasting longer than 4 h. Median LOS was 8 days for patients with POI compared to five for those without (p < 0.001). Relative median 30-day costs were 1.19 in patients with ileus and 1.0 in those without (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We identified a 13% rate of POI in patients undergoing open abdominal wall reconstruction with mesh with no clearly identified predisposing factors. This resulted in a 3 days increase in median LOS and 19% additional costs. Further efforts should be devoted to investigating interventions that may reduce postoperative ileus after abdominal wall reconstruction.

Open Retroperitoneal Repair for Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Background  Open surgical repair (OSR) of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms (CAAAs) can be challenging. We frequently utilize the retroperitoneal (RP) approach for such cases. We audited our outcomes with the aim of establishing the utility and safety of this approach.

Methods  Retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing OSR of an unruptured CAAA via a RP approach in our center over a 7-year period. Data on repairs via a transperitoneal (TP) approach were collected to provide context. Demographic, operative, radiological, and biochemical data were collected. The primary outcome measure was 30-day/inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included the need for reoperation, incidence of postoperative chest infection, acute kidney injury (AKI) and length of stay (LOS). All patients received aortic clamping above at least one main renal artery.

Results  One hundred and three patients underwent OSR of an unruptured CAAA; 55 via a RP approach, 48 TP. The RP group demonstrated a more advanced pattern of disease with a larger median maximum diameter (65 vs. 61 mm, p = 0.013) and a more proximal extent. Consequently, the rate of supravisceral clamping was higher in RP repair (66 vs. 15%, p  < 0.001). Despite this there were no differences in the observed early mortality (9.1 vs. 10%, NS); incidence of reoperation (10.9 vs. 12.5%, NS), chest infection (32.7 vs. 25%, NS), and AKI (52.7 vs. 45.8%, NS); or median LOS (10 vs. 12 days, NS) following RP and TP repair.

Conclusion  OSR of CAAAs carries significant 30-day mortality. In patients unsuitable for fenestrated endovascular aortic repair or those desiring a durable long-term solution, OSR can be performed through the RP or TP approach. This study has demonstrated that in our unit RP repair facilitates treatment of more advanced AAA utilizing complex proximal clamp zones with similar perioperative morbidity and mortality compared with TP cases utilizing more distal clamping.

Retroperitoneal versus Transperitoneal Approach for Open Repair of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

Several studies have demonstrated advantages of the retroperitoneal approach (RP) over the transperitoneal approach (TP) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. A retrospective analysis was performed comparing the outcomes of a TP vs. RP surgical approach for open complex AAA (cAAA) repair and evaluated their relative use over time.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open repair for intact cAAA (juxtarenal, suprarenal, or type IV thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms) between 2011 and 2019 were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. The primary outcome was peri-operative death. Secondary outcomes included peri-operative complications and approach use over time. Multivariable adjustment was performed by creating propensity scores and using inverse probability weighted logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 1 195 patients identified, 729 (61%) underwent cAAA repair via a TP approach and 466 (39%) via an RP approach. Compared with a TP approach, RP patients more frequently had a supracoeliac clamp position (32% vs. 20%, p < .001) and concomitant renal revascularisation (30% vs. 18%, p < .001). After adjustment, an RP approach was associated with lower odds of peri-operative death (4.0% vs. 7.2%; odds ratio [OR] 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32 - 0.91; p = .022). Furthermore, an RP approach was associated with lower odds of any major complication (24% vs. 30%; OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 - 0.94), cardiac complications (4.9% vs. 8.2%; OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.37 - 0.96), wound complications (2.1% vs. 6.0%; OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.17 - 0.64), and post-operative sepsis (0.8% vs. 2.4%; OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.12 - 0.99). The proportion of repairs using an RP approach decreased between 2011 - 2015 and 2016 - 2019 (42% vs. 35%, p = .020), particularly for suprarenal and type IV thoraco-abdominal aneurysms (49% vs. 37%, p = .023).

CONCLUSION

In open cAAA repair, the RP approach may be associated with lower peri-operative mortality and morbidity rates compared with the TP approach. However, it was found that the relative use of the RP approach is decreasing over time, even in suprarenal/type IV thoraco-abdominal aneurysms, and repairs using a supracoeliac clamp. Increased use of the RP approach, when appropriate, may lead to improved outcomes following open cAAA repair.

A Retroperitoneal Operative Approach is Associated with Improved Perioperative Outcomes Compared with a Transperitoneal Approach in Open Repair of Complex Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

Several studies have demonstrated advantages of a retroperitoneal approach (RP) over a transperitoneal approach (TP) during open repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). We compared outcomes following open repair of complex AAA (cAAA) using an RP versus a TP approach and evaluated the relative use of these approaches over time.

METHODS

We identified all patients undergoing open intact cAAA repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) from 2003-2019 and created 1:1-propensity score-matched cohorts based on operative approach (RP vs. TP). The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications and approach usage over time. To create 1:1-propensity score-matched cohorts, patients were matched for demographics, comorbidities and anatomic/intraoperative characteristics including proximal clamp site and renal revascularization. Approach usage over time was determined by plotting the proportion of RP usage over time for the overall open cAAA cohort and subgroups of repairs utilizing a supraceliac cross clamp, repair with concomitant renal revascularization, and repairs in high volume centers (highest quintile: >11 cases/year).

RESULTS

Of 4,613 patients, 2,843 (62%) patients underwent open cAAA repair by TP approach and 1,770 (38%) patients by RP approach. In 1,256 matched pairs, RP approach was associated with lower risk of perioperative mortality compared with TP approach (3.9% vs. 6.8%/RR 0.57 [95%CI 0.41-0.80], p=.001). Furthermore, RP approach was associated with lower risk of cardiac complication (7.2% vs. 9.6%/RR 0.75 [95%CI 0.58-0.98]), bowel ischemia (3.1% vs. 5.4%/RR 0.56 [95%CI 0.39-0.84]) and postoperative dialysis (3.3% vs. 5.5%/RR 0.59 [95%CI 0.41-0.87]). Overall, there was a lower proportion of patients who underwent repair via an RP approach over time (-1.0%/year [-1.5 - -0.5], p<.001), and a similar trend in decrease was found within patients undergoing repair with a supraceliac clamp (-2.3%/year [-3.6 - -1.0], p<.001) and in high-volume hospitals (-2.1%/year [-3.4 - -0.8], p=.001), although no statistically significant decrease in RP usage was found in patients undergoing concomitant renal revascularization (-0.9%/year [-2.6 - 0.8], p=.28).

CONCLUSION

For open cAAA repair, an RP approach is associated with lower perioperative mortality and complications compared with a TP approach. However, relative usage of the RP approach is decreasing over time. Increased adoption of an RP approach, when appropriate, may lead to improved outcomes following open cAAA repair.

The retroperitoneal approach for contemporary open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery: The anatomical reasoning

In current practice, the place of open surgery in managing abdominal aortic aneurysm is a contentious issue. The principal reason being greater applications of endovascular techniques treating increasingly complicated aortic disease. Development of branched and fenestrated devices enabled this, with numbers increasing annually. This meant a good risk patient with a long infrarenal aortic neck and normal diameter non-tortuous iliac arteries may be suitable for both endovascular and open techniques. However, indications for open surgery are becoming increasingly unclear nowadays due to short-term gains in morbidity and mortality. Exact aortic anatomical morphologies optimum for open or endovascular techniques remains unclear. As graft technology evolves, possibilities for endovascular options are expanding. Currently, establishing optimum treatment plans for complicated abdominal aortic aneurysm (little or no infrarenal neck) is difficult without considering general fitness of the patient. Hence, two sets of possible postoperative complications and follow-up protocols must be explained to patients before either approach. Complicating matters is the optimum surgical approach used for any open repair. The standard approach for open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery has been transperitoneal as this provides excellent access to the infrarenal aorta and iliac arteries. However, although less commonly used, the retroperitoneal approach has advantages particularly when location of proximal aortic disease indicates suprarenal clamp might be optimum. This paper scrutinises benefits of the retroperitoneal approach performed purely for anatomical reasons where stent graft may be considered complicated. Also, long-term outcomes are examined in terms of endo-leak and subsequent development of true and false aneurysm following both endovascular and open repair.

The role of the pedicle omental flap in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a case report and literature review

A ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 40% and an overall mortality rate of 60–80%. Open surgical repair for rAAA remains the principal method of treatment when endovascular repair is not available. Graft infection occurs in 1–4% of patients at 5 years, with a high incidence following emergency treatment. Other graft-related complications include pseudoaneurysm, graft occlusion and aorto-enteric fistula. This case report describes a 66-year-old male patient that was admitted to hospital complaining of intense abdominal pain, low blood pressure and tachycardia. He was diagnosed with a rAAA and treated using segmental resection of the abdominal aorta followed by reconstruction with a synthetic Dacron prosthesis. A pedicle omental flap was wrapped around the prosthetic graft and it was also used to fill the retroperitoneal cavity in order to reduce the risk of graft-related complications. Computed tomography angiography after 6 months showed good integration of the aortic prosthetic graft and the viability of the omental flap. In our opinion, vascular surgeons should consider the pedicle omental flap when they perform open surgical repair for rAAA in order to reduce the incidence of graft-related complications.

[Graft-renal bypass surgery during intraoperative dissection of renal artery in a patient with high occlusion of the aorta]

Despite advances in the development of endovascular techniques of revascularization of renal arteries, in certain clinical cases still remains the need to perform extra-anatomic renal bypass grafting. To such instances belong complicated atherosclerotic aortic lesions, technical difficulties occurring during open revascularization of the aorta and its branches, as well as aneurysms of the juxtarenal portion of the abdominal aorta. Presented herein is a clinical case concerning a patient subjected to non-standard restoration of blood flow in the right renal artery after thromboendarterectomy from the juxtarenal aorta, performed from the left-sided extraperitoneal phrenolumbotomic approach and complicated by secondary dissection of the intima in the right renal artery.

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.

Ureteric complications and left retroperitoneal abdominal aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms in the UK is usually performed via a midline transperitoneal incision. However, the left retroperitoneal (RP) approach may be beneficial for juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms and certain physiological reasons. One potential disadvantage is that the left kidney usually requires mobilization anteromedially risking injury to the renal tract and possibly the ureter.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, the time of onset, clinical presentation and treatment of left renal tract complications are scrutinized and discussed. Reasons for open aortic surgery as opposed to endovascular repair being undertaken were documented. Also, the aortic cross-clamp positions and type of reconstruction were examined.

RESULTS

A total of 208 patients underwent RP aortic surgery for aneurysmal disease. The aortic cross-clamp positions were infrarenal in 115 (55%), suprarenal in 78 (38%) and supra-superior mesenteric artery or supracoeliac in 15 (7%). Two percent (4/208) sustained ureteric complications and all occurred in the upper third of the left ureter. The time of onset of symptoms ranged from 2 to 14 days post-operatively with a median of 3.5. Clinical signs were non-specific including pyrexia, tachycardia and flank pain.

CONCLUSION

Ureteric complications following left RP aortic surgery is uncommon and usually occurs in the upper third of the renal tract. Trauma appears to be the most common cause, although ureteric ischaemia can occur but presents later particularly in those with comorbidities.

Abdominal Closure and the Risk of Incisional Hernia in Aneurysm Surgery - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have a high prevalence of incisional hernia following open repair. The choice of incision and closure technique has a significant impact on this post-operative complication. Multiple techniques exist, as well as various comparative analyses, but clinical consensus is lacking. The objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of AAA laparotomy and closure technique and the risk of incisional hernia development.

METHODS

The systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search of all original research published until January 2019 was made. Outcome measures were surgical approach, closure technique, hernia rates, length of follow up, and method of hernia recognition. Groups were divided according to method of abdominal incision and closure technique. Differences in outcome between closure techniques were expressed as risk ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included with a cumulative cohort of between 388 and 3 399 patients compared in each group. Abdominal closure with a suture to wound length ratio of more than 4:1 compared with less than 4:1, RR 0.42 (95% CI 0.27-0.65), and abdominal closure with mesh compared with without mesh augmentation, RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.10-0.60) reduced the risk of incisional hernia. There were no significant differences in incisional hernia rate between transverse abdominal incision vs. vertical midline incision, RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.31-1.06) and between midline transperitoneal vs. all retroperitoneal incisions, RR 1.19 (95% CI 0.54-2.61).

CONCLUSION

Choice of abdominal closure technique after aneurysm surgery impacts the risk of developing incisional hernia. The use of a supportive mesh significantly reduces the risk of incisional hernia in vertical midline incisions. The same is true if a suture to wound ratio of more than 4:1 is used.

Mid-Term Outcomes of Retroperitoneal and Transperitoneal Exposures in Open Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

There have been a number of studies comparing perioperative outcomes of the retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) approaches to open aortic aneurysm repair (OAR), many of which have shown conflicting results. There remains a paucity of data comparing these 2 exposures beyond 30 days. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term outcomes between RP and TP exposures in OAR.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of elective OAR from a single institution from 2010 to 2014 with at least one year of follow-up. Patients with any prior aortic repair, prior midline TP or RP exposures, prior small bowel obstruction (SBO), or prior abdominal wall hernia repair were excluded. Patients' demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative details, and postoperative variables up to 5 years were compared. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, aortic or arterial reinterventions, incisional reinterventions, SBO or reintervention for SBO, and composite reintervention.

RESULTS

Of the 273 OARs identified, 136 OARs (86 TP and 50 RP exposures) met criteria for the study. The average follow-up was 43.4 months. Of the preoperative and intraoperative characteristics, patients with RP exposures were significantly more likely to be female (30% vs. 12.8%; P = .014) and to have larger aneurysm (6.1 ± 1.02 cm vs. 5.4 ± 1.01 cm; P < .001), tube graft (48% vs 19.8%; P < .001), and renal bypass (30% vs. 2.3%; P < .001). Patients with TP exposures were significantly more likely to have inferior mesenteric artery reimplantation (15.1% vs. 4%; P = .046), infrarenal clamping (65.9% vs. 22%; P < .001), and iliac aneurysm (36% vs. 4%; P < .001). During mid-term follow-up, there was not a difference in all-cause survival at 3 years (95.8% vs. 95.8%; P = .52). Although there were more incisional hernias in the TP group (48% vs. 8%; P < .001), there was no difference in incisional reinterventions (14% vs. 6%; P = .36). There were no differences in aortic or arterial reinterventions (5% vs. 4%; P = .86), SBO (7% vs. 0%; P = .99), intervention for SBO (3% vs. 0%; P = .99), or composite reinterventions (16% vs. 10%; P = .6) between the TP and RP exposures.

CONCLUSIONS

In mid-term follow-up, OAR through TP exposure had more incisional hernias compared with RP exposure. However, there is no difference in mortality or composite reinterventions between approaches.

The Cattell-Braasch maneuver might be a good option for a huge abdominal aortic aneurysm

Endovascular repair is often difficult in the case of a huge abdominal aortic aneurysm for anatomic reasons. Here, we describe open repair of a huge infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. Open repair was performed through laparotomy with the Cattell-Braasch maneuver, a technique for right-sided medial visceral rotation. Laparotomy with the Cattell-Braasch maneuver is simple and effective in open repair of a huge abdominal aortic aneurysm extending into the right common iliac artery, for which proximal clamping is difficult because of a tortuous proximal neck just below the hepatic region.

Postoperative ileus: Pathophysiology, incidence, and prevention

Postoperative ileus (POI) is a major focus of concern for surgeons because it increases duration of hospitalization, cost of care, and postoperative morbidity. The definition of POI is relatively consensual albeit with a variable definition of interval to resolution ranging from 2 to 7 days for different authors. This variation, however, leads to non-reproducibility of studies and difficulties in interpreting the results. Certain risk factors for POI, such as male gender, advanced age and major blood loss, have been repeatedly described in the literature. Understanding of the pathophysiology of POI has helped combat and prevent its occurrence. But despite preventive and therapeutic efforts arising from such knowledge, 10 to 30% of patients still develop POI after abdominal surgery. In France, pharmacological prevention is limited by the unavailability of effective drugs. Perioperative nutrition is very important, as well as limitation of preoperative fasting to 6 hours for solid food and 2 hours for liquids, and virtually no fasting in the postoperative period. Coffee and chewing gum also play a preventive role for POI. The advent of laparoscopy has led to a significant improvement in the recovery of gastrointestinal function. Enhanced recovery programs, grouping together all measures for prevention or cure of POI by addressing the mechanisms of POI, has reduced the duration of hospitalization, morbidity and interval to resumption of transit.

The Significance of Hypothermia in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to review the literature on the association between hypothermia and outcomes in open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. The secondary aim was to determine whether there is a difference in body temperature in patients undergoing either transperitoneal (TP), retroperitoneal (RP), or endovascular surgical repair of the abdominal aorta (EVAR).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Trip searched for all studies on temperature in the context of aortic surgery or endovascular aortic interventions. To be included in the review, the papers had to be related to intraoperative or postoperative hypothermia and/or normothermia, with regards to either open or endovascular repair of the abdominal aorta. Thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic repairs were not included for review.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 765 patients were eligible. Of these, 6 studies looked at open elective AAA repair involving 605 patients. Only 2 studies investigated emergency AAA repair and consisted of 160 patients where only 35 of those patients underwent emergency EVAR. Normothermic patients had a shorter length of stay in the intensive care unit (P = 0.0008), while hypothermia was independently associated with higher rates of organ dysfunction, in-hospital mortality, and prolonged hospital length of stay. In ruptured AAAs, the lowest average intraoperative temperature was recorded in open repair compared with EVAR (P = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative temperature between patients undergoing elective RP repair and those having TP surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies identified in this review have shown that hypothermia has numerous deleterious effects on outcomes in AAA repair - whether or not these adverse outcomes are those such as higher rates of organ dysfunction, mortality or prolonged hospital length of stay, can only be done at the single paper level and not at a literature review level, due to multiple confounding variables. Despite these limitations, the benefits of this review are numerous. This article highlights the importance of core body temperature and outcomes of AAA repair. Furthermore, it brings forth the need to standardize the method of core body temperature measurement and method of rewarming. Given the body of evidence so far, these standardized data collection points will be important for national vascular quality improvement initiatives. Only through rigorous analysis of standardized dataset can firm recommendation regarding peri- and postoperative temperature management be made.

Thoracic Stent Graft Implantation for Aortic Coarctation with Patent Ductus Arteriosus via Retroperitoneal Iliac Approach in the Presence of Small Sized Femoral Artery

Endovascular stent graft implantation is a favorable method for complex aortic coarctation accompanied by patent ductus arteriosus. Herein, an 18-year-old woman with complex aortic coarctation and patent ductus arteriosus was successfully treated by endovascular thoracic stent graft via retroperitoneal approach. The reason for retroperitoneal iliac approach was small sized common femoral arteries which were not suitable for stent graft passage. This case is the first aortic coarctation plus patent ductus arteriosus case described in the literature which is treated by endovascular thoracic stent graft via retroperitoneal approach.

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.

Essential steps in the performance of safe retroperitoneal aortic surgery

Endovascular stent grafting has become the primary modality when assessing patients for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). The traditional open approach is transperitoneal (TP) but many suggest the retroperitoneal method (RP) has significant benefits. Retroperitoneal aortic surgery may be unfamiliar to many surgeons as they have been trained in the TP approach. This paper provides specific tips for the critical steps of this approach enabling it to be performed with ease and minimal morbidity.

Left retroperitoneal aortic aneurysm repair in patients unsuitable for endovascular treatment

BACKGROUND

This study aims to evaluate the contemporary outcome of left open retroperitoneal (RP) abdominal aortic surgery over a 7-year time period in patients with difficult anatomy unsuitable for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

Eighty-four consecutive patients unsuitable for EVAR/FEVAR underwent left RP open aortic surgery. Of these, 44 (52%) required an infrarenal cross-clamp, 17 (20%) a suprarenal cross-clamp and 15 (18%) a supracoeliac cross-clamp. Eight (10%) were thoracoabdominal aneurysms.

RESULTS

There were four mortalities within 30 days (4.8%). Two occurred in patients with a supracoeliac cross-clamp, one in a suprarenal cross-clamp (total suprarenal mortality 10%) and one in an infrarenal cross-clamp. Four patients required prolonged ventilatory support (>10 days). Three patients (9%) from the suprarenal group developed post-operative renal dysfunction, one of these required permanent dialysis. Paralytic ileus occured in two patients (2%) and was secondary to ischaemia in both cases.

CONCLUSION

There will always remain a small group of patients best treated by open aortic surgery. By definition, these are complex, difficult cases and are decreasing in number. However, in vascular units regularly performing the RP approach, excellent results can be obtained. This series provides further evidence for centralization of vascular services.