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 than60°), il iac severe tortuosity, preoperative systol ic pressure, and preoperative comorbidity between 2 groups (P gt; 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 gt; 0.05). EVRAR group was significantly better than OR group in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay (P lt; 0.05), but OR group was significantly better than EVRAR group in reinterventions and graftrelated complications (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion 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.
ObjectiveTo evaluate whether laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer o ers elderly patients an improved outcome compared with conventional open surgery. MethodsFrom May 2008 to December 2013, clinical data of 163 elderly patients ( ≥ 60 years) who underwent laparoscopic or open repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease were analyzed retrospectively in our hospital. Ninety-one patients received laparoscopic repair and 72 received conventional open repair. The primary end points that were evaluated were total operative time, searching time, nasogastric tube utilization, intravenous fluid requirement, total time of abdominal drainage and urinary catheter usage, time taken to return to normal gastrointestinal motility, percentage of intravenous/intramuscular opiate use, off-bed time, and total in-patient hospital stay. The second end points were morbidity. ResultsThere was a significant diTherence in total operative time in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair and open repair [(67.9±3.6) minutes vs. (97.8±5.2) minutes]. There was a significant decrease in the time that the nasogastric tube (2.1 days vs. 3.1 days), urinary catheter (2.3 days vs. 3.7 days) and abdominal drain (2.2 days vs. 3.8 days) were required during the postoperative period. Patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair also required less intravenous fluids (2.4 days vs. 4.1 days) and returned to normal gastrointestinal motility [(32.1±1.5) hours vs. (58.4±4.8) hours] and off-bed time significantly earlier than those who had undergone open repair (2.1 days vs. 3.5 days). There was significantly less requirement for intravenous/intramuscular opiate analgesia in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair (4.7% vs. 45.6%). In addition, patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair required a shorter in-patient hospital stay (4.1 days vs. 5.3 days). Moreover, morbidity of laparoscopic repair was much lower than open repair (3.3% vs. 16.7%). ConclusionLaparoscopic repair is a viable and safe surgical option for elderly patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease and should be considered for all patients.