Clinical Outcome and Morphologic Analysis after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Using the Excluder Endograft

OBJECTIVE: Long-term follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is very scarce, and doubt remains regarding the durability of these procedures. We designed a retrospective cohort study to assess long-term clinical outcome and morphologic changes in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) treated by EVAR using the Excluder endoprosthesis (W. L. Gore and Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz). METHODS: From 2000 to 2007, 179 patients underwent EVAR in a tertiary institution. Clinical data were retrieved from a prospective database. All patients treated with the Excluder endoprosthesis were included. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans were retrospectively analyzed preoperatively, at 30 days, and at the last follow-up using dedicated tridimensional reconstruction software. For patients with complications, all remaining CTAs were also analyzed. The primary end point was clinical success. Secondary end points were freedom from reintervention, sac growth, types I and III endoleak, migration, conversion to open repair, and AAA-related death or rupture. Neck dilatation, renal function, and overall survival were also analyzed. RESULTS: Included were 144 patients (88.2% men; mean age, 71.6 years). Aneurysms were ruptured in 4.9%. American Society of Anesthesiologists classification was III/IV in 61.8%. No patients were lost during a median follow-up of 5.0 years (interquartile range, 3.1-6.4; maximum, 11.2 years). Two patients died of medical complications ≤ 30 days after EVAR. The estimated primary clinical success rates at 5 and 10 years were 63.5% and 41.1%, and secondary clinical success rates were 78.3% and 58.3%, respectively. Sac growth was observed in 37 of 142 patients (26.1%). Cox regression showed type I endoleak during follow-up (hazard ratio, 3.74; P = .008), original design model (hazard ratio, 3.85; P = .001), and preoperative neck diameter (1.27 per mm increase, P = .006) were determinants of sac growth. Secondary interventions were required in 32 patients (22.5%). The estimated 10-year rate of AAA-related death or rupture was 2.1%. Overall life expectancy after AAA repair was 6.8 years. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR using the Excluder endoprosthesis provides a safe and lasting treatment for AAA, despite the need for maintained surveillance and secondary interventions. At up to 11 years, the risk of AAA-related death or postimplantation rupture is remarkably low. The incidences of postimplantation sac growth and secondary intervention were greatly reduced after the introduction of the low-permeability design in 2004.

Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy

Introduction: Hysterectomy is the commonest gynecologic operation, performed for malignant and benign conditions. There are many approaches to hysterectomy for benign disease. Studies comparing the techniques have showed that vaginal hysterectomy has benefits in terms of reduced hospital stay, faster recovery and less operating time. Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the surgical and immediate postoperative outcomes of Laparoscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterectomy (LAVH) with those of Vaginal Hysterectomy (VH). Methods: Retrospective descriptive study, comparing two groups of women who underwent LAVH or VH in our department during a 24 months period, from January 2009 to December 2010. The two groups were compared regarding age, vaginal deliveries, previous abdominal surgery, uterine and adnexal pathology, intra-operative and post-operative complications, uterus weight, blood loss and number of days until discharge. Results: In our study 42 LAVH and 99 VH were included, with a patient mean age of 47 and 59, respectively. The most frequent indication for hysterectomy was fibroids (80%) for LAVH and POP(58.6%) for HV. In LAVH group 47.6% of patients had previous abdominal surgery, vs 28.2% in VH group. The medium operative time was 167 minutes for LAVH vs 99 minutes for HV. The intra-operative complications were one case (2%) of accidental incision of rectum in LAVH, and one bladder incision in the VH (1%). There were 3 conversions to laparotomy for difficult technique (7%) in LAVH group. There were no significant post-operative complications for LAVH. In VH group there were 2 cases of haemoperitoneum (2%) and 1 case requiring blood transfusion (1%). The mean time for discharge was 4.23 days for LAVH and 4.46 days for VH. Conclusions: In our study, the main advantage for VH was the reduced operative time. In terms of time to discharge there was no difference between the 2 groups. The main intra-operative complication of LAVH was the risk of conversion to laparotomy, but post-operatively this procedure had fewer complications than VH. In conclusion, LAVH is a safe option for women requiring hysterectomy in cases where VH is anticipated to be technically difficult.