Comparison of therapeutic effects between open surgery and endovascular therapy for juxtarenal aortic occlusion

• Main Authors: Yongquan Gu, Lixing Qi, Alan Dardik, Xixiang Gao, Lianrui Guo, Zhu Tong, Jianming Guo, Jian Zhang, Zhonghao Wang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2018-01-01
• Series: Vascular Investigation and Therapy
• Subjects: arterial bypass; endovascular therapy; juxtarenal abdominal aortic occlusion; limb ischemia
• Online Access: http://www.vitonline.org/article.asp?issn=2589-9686;year=2018;volume=1;issue=2;spage=74;epage=79;aulast=Gu

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgical bypass and endovascular therapy for juxtarenal abdominal aortic occlusion. METHODS: Data of 37 patients treated with open arterial bypass surgery or endovascular therapy for juxtarenal abdominal aortic occlusion in the last 10 years were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 37 cases, 32 were male and five were female; the mean age was 58.5 years; the mean disease history was 8.2 months. Open surgery was performed in 18 cases and endovascular treatment was done in 19 cases. No significant differences in either technical success rate or perioperative symptom improvement rate were found between the open surgery and endovascular therapy groups. There w as much more blood loss, hospital stay time, and fewer hospitalization expenses in the open group than the endo group. In the open group, the mean follow-up time was 60.5 months and graft patency rate was 94.4%; in the endo group, the mean follow-up was 52.5 months but the patency rate was 82.4% (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Both open surgery and endovascular treatment are effective for juxtarenal aortic occlusion. In comparison, open surgery has lower cost with better long-term eff icacy, while endovascular therapy has less invasiveness with faster postoperative recovery. O perative approach should be made according to the patient's clinical conditions.