肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术42例分析

目的 探讨肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术的价值。方法 中山大学附属第一医院自2001年12月至2005年4月．共手术治疗42例肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤病人。采用单侧或双侧股动脉入路植入带膜支架对肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤进行腔内修复。结果42例肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤病人接受了血管腔内修复术，手术全部成功。围手术期死亡2例，其中1例为术前腹主动脉瘤破裂休克时间较长，已经合并急性肾功能不全；另1例为术后出现脑血管意外，2例均在术后3d死亡。其余40例随访1-40个月，全部存活。结论 肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术是一种安全、有效的治疗方法，长期疗效仍有待进一步观察。     

肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤腔内治疗后并发症的防治

目的　总结肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤腔内治疗后常见并发症的预防与处理。　方法对已施行腔内治疗的 71例肾下腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析 ,讨论常见并发症发生的原因、处理、结果及预后。　结果　 71例接受腔内治疗的肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤患者技术成功率1 0 0 % ,无中转开腹手术者。原发性内漏 8例 ,神经并发症合并急性血栓形成 1例。一过性缺血性肠炎 2例。无肾动脉梗死、肢体栓塞等并发症。平均随访时间 (2 6± 5)个月。围手术期病死率 1 3 % (1 /71 ) ,总病死率 4 2 % (3/ 71 )。死亡原因 2例为急性心肌梗死 ,1例为急性心功能衰竭。随访过程中发现 3例原发性内漏转为持续性内漏 ,另发现继发性内漏 4例。本组患者 1个月后内漏发生率 9 8%(7/ 71 )。 2例继发性Ⅰ型内漏随访中瘤体增大 ,1例进行二期腔内治疗。　结论　动脉瘤的腔内治疗具有创伤小、技术操作可行、效果肯定的优点 ,内漏血是该技术主要并发症。对漏血量及瘤体有增大趋势的内漏应积极处理     

《中国实用外科杂志》2012年第12期重点内容介绍 重点选题:腹主动脉瘤诊断与治疗

肾动脉平面以下腹主动脉瘤腔内治疗指征的商榷(汪忠镐,胡志伟)重视腹主动脉瘤规范化治疗(吴庆华)挑战主动脉弓:目前的证据与未来走向(郭伟,许永乐)腹主动脉瘤腔内治疗中的影像学价值(刘长建)腹主动脉瘤的手术时机(张纪蔚)腹主动脉瘤腔内治疗的合理选择与技术要点(符伟国,李永生,王玉琦)开放手术治疗腹主动脉瘤的地位与技术要点(陈忠)腹主动脉瘤围手术期管理(赵渝,李凤贺)     

肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术10例治疗体会

目的总结肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术的初步经验。方法对我院2006年8月至2009年3月期间收治的10例肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤患者在全麻下采用单侧或双侧股动脉入路置入带膜支架行腔内修复术。结果10例肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤采用腔内修复治疗,带膜支架置入顺利,立即DSA7例动脉瘤体消失,Ⅰ型内瘘2例,经支架附着点球囊扩张后内瘘即刻消失。随访3～30个月(平均10个月),2例术后切口淋巴瘘,经换药痊愈。全部患者肢体血运正常。1例发生Ⅱ型内瘘,未经治疗,随访2个月后消失。结论腔内修复术对肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤是一种创伤小、恢复快及效果好的治疗方法。     

破裂腹主动脉瘤的外科治疗及预后

目的探讨破裂腹主动脉瘤的诊断、治疗方法及影响预后的因素。方法回顾性分析1999年4月至2005年12月期间我院收治的23例肾动脉下破裂腹主动脉瘤患者的临床资料，其中男15例，女8例；年龄35～78岁，平均65岁。自知有腹主动脉瘤者7例，有腹部搏动性包块者6例，术前行急诊彩超和（或）CT检查确诊15例。所有患者均行急诊手术治疗。根据术中情况采取肾动脉下腹主动脉钳夹阻断或腹主动脉腔内球囊阻断，控制出血后行人造血管移植术。结果手术后30d内死亡9例（39％），死亡原因为出血性休克所致的急性肾功能衰竭4例、多器官功能衰竭3例、呼吸循环衰竭2例。结论手术治疗是对破裂腹主动脉瘤的有效治疗，根据术中情况采取不同的方法阻断破裂口近端腹主动脉以控制出血是手术的关键。急性心脑血管疾病、急性肾功能衰竭及肺部并发症是术后的主要并发症及死亡原因。     

腹主动脉瘤破裂的外科治疗：附12例报告

目的:探讨腹主动脉瘤破裂（RAAA）的诊断和治疗方法。方法: 回顾分析7年间收治的12例腹主动脉瘤破裂者的临床资料。主要临床表现有：腹痛和/或腰背痛,血压下降或休克, 腹部可触及搏动性肿块。所有患者经CT 检查确诊，7例患者采用传统开腹性手术，1例行腔内支架型人工血管植入术，另外4例未行手术治疗。结果:8例手术治疗者围手术期病死率为62.5％（5例）。死亡原因：循环衰竭2 例,急性肾衰竭1 例,多器官功能障碍综合征2 例。未手术4例全部死亡。结论:破裂腹主动脉瘤外科手术治疗病死率高。早期诊断，适当复苏，紧急外科手术，缩短手术时间，肾动脉下方阻断，是降低病死率的关键。腔内修复治疗是降低病死率的有效途径。     

肾动脉平面以下腹主动脉瘤腔内治疗指征商榷

肾动脉平面以下腹主动脉瘤（IRAAA）不同于胸腹主动脉瘤和发生在肾动脉以上腹主动脉瘤,只要有合适而安全的腔内疗法就应立即积极应用,尤其是年老、多病、全身状态差的IRAAA病人,这样可避免巨大的手术风险。但腔内疗法存在内漏、装置耐久性、需要长期影像学随访和可能的反复再次矫正等问题,而手术治疗是一种已被充分确立的可靠耐久的治疗方法。 因此,当解剖上有困难时不必一定要坚持采用微创法治疗,也不必降低手术指征。对小的主动脉瘤以致主动脉扩张者应进行微创治疗;对于相对年轻、健康或体力劳动者,采用何种方法为宜是一个值得探讨的问题。     

������ƽ�����¸���������ǻ������ָ����ȶ

肾动脉平面以下腹主动脉瘤(IRAAA)不同于胸腹主动脉瘤和发生在肾动脉以上腹主动脉瘤,只要有合适而安全的腔内疗法就应立即积极应用,尤其是年老、多病、全身状态差的IRAAA病人,这样可避免巨大的手术风险。但腔内疗法存在内漏、装置耐久性、需要长期影像学随访和可能的反复再次矫正等问题,而手术治疗是一种已被充分确立的可靠耐久的治疗方法。因此,当解剖上有困难时不必一定要坚持采用微创法治疗,也不必降低手术指征。对小的主动脉瘤以致主动脉扩张者应进行微创治疗;对于相对年轻、健康或体力劳动者,采用何种方法为宜是一个值得探讨的问题。     

血管、淋巴管

血管外科；血管腔内技术与手术治疗锁骨下动脉闭塞症；锁骨下动脉损伤及创伤性假性动脉瘤手术方法探讨；肾动脉下腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术42例分析；肠系膜静脉血栓形成16例临床分析；老年人肠系膜上静脉血栓形成16例诊治分析；老年人急性肠系膜静脉血栓形成的诊断与治疗；曲张浅静脉连续缝扎治疗下肢静脉曲张92例临床观察；TriVex微创旋切术治疗下肢静脉曲张的临床分析     

腹主动脉瘤的治疗

目的 探讨腹主动脉瘤(AAA)的治疗方法。方法 回顾性分析26例AAA的临床资料。结果 26例中夹层动脉瘤3例，真性动脉瘤21例，动脉瘤破裂后再形成的假性动脉瘤1例，动脉瘤穿破十二指肠空肠曲形成腹主动脉肠瘘1例。病变累及肾动脉平面以上者3例，肾动脉平面以下者23例：病变仅累及腹主动脉者4例，病变除累及腹主动脉外，尚合并有单侧或双侧髂总动脉瘤者／2例，合并双侧髂总动脉瘤及一例或双侧髂内动脉瘤者5例，合并一侧髂总、髂内、髂外动脉瘤1例，合并有双侧髂总、髂内、髂外动脉瘤1例。施行紧急手术治疗3例，择期手术治疗14例，施行支架型人工血管腔内微创治疗7例，未手术2例。术后发生并发症3例，无瘫痪、下肢动脉栓塞等发生。术中及术后30d死亡率为3．8％(1例)。支架型人工血管治疗的7例无漏血、移位等并发症发生，均痊愈出院。22例随访3个月至4年，均存活良好。结论 AAA的腔内血管外科治疗具有创伤小，术石恢复快，并发症少等优点，有条件行支架型人工血管作腔内治疗的应优先考虑腔内治疗，传统手术方法在技巧等方面的改进有利于提高手术的成功率，并能为不具备腔内治疗条件的患者解除疾患。     

187例肾下腹主动脉瘤的手术治疗经验

目的　总结肾下型腹主动脉瘤手术经验。方法　回顾性分析 1 992年 1月至 2 0 0 4年2月 1 87例择期行肾下型腹主动脉瘤切除术 (或同时切除髂动脉瘤 )的临床资料。结果　围手术期心梗死亡 1例 ,死亡率为 0 . 5 4 %。手术时间 3～ 6h ,平均 3 8h ;出血量 2 0 0～ 1 5 0 0ml,平均 4 70ml;输血量 0～ 1 5 0 0ml,平均 4 4 5ml。ICU停留时间 1 2～ 2 4h。围手术期并发症包括心力衰竭 1 7例 ,呼吸衰竭 8例 ,急性心肌梗死 2例 ,急性脑梗死 1例 ,急性肾功能衰竭 3例 ,无术后严重出血或失血性休克发生 ,无下肢动脉栓塞发生。术后 1、3、5年生存率分别为 97. 0 %、84. 6 %、78 . 3%,患者随访期间的死亡与腹主动脉瘤和手术无关。结论　瘤体直径不能作为手术指征。腹主动脉瘤手术的危险因素主要是高龄、严重的心肺疾患和肾功能不全等。手术切除腹主动脉瘤疗效是满意的。     

Will endovascular repair replace open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate of the impact of endovascular aneurysm repair on the rate of open surgical repair and on the overall treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). METHODS: All patients with AAA who were treated during two consecutive 40-month periods were reviewed. During the first period, only open surgical repair was performed; during the subsequent 40 months, endovascular repair and open surgical repair were treatment options. RESULTS: A total of 727 patients with AAA were treated during the entire period. During the initial 40 months, 268 patients were treated with open surgical repair, including 216 infrarenal (81%), 43 complex (16%), and 9 ruptured (3%) aortic aneurysms. During the subsequent 40 months, 459 patients with AAA were treated (71% increase). There was no significant change in the number of patients undergoing open surgical repair and no significant difference in the rate of infrarenal (238 [77%]) and complex (51 [16%]) repairs. A total of 353 patients were referred for endovascular repair. Of these, 190 (54%) were considered candidates for endovascular repair based on computed tomography or arteriographic morphologic criteria. Analyzing a subgroup of 123 patients, the most common primary reasons for ineligibility for endovascular repair were related to morphology of the neck in 80 patients (65%) and of the iliac arteries in 35 patients (28%). A total of 149 patients underwent endovascular repair. Of these, the procedure was successful in 147 (99%), and 2 (1%) patients underwent surgical conversion. The hospital death rate was 0%, and the 30-day death rate was 1%. During a follow-up period of 1 to 39 months (mean 12 +/- 9), 21 secondary procedures to treat endoleak (20) or to maintain graft limb patency (1) were performed in 17 patients (11%). There were no aneurysm ruptures or aneurysm-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair appears to have augmented treatment options rather than replaced open surgical repair for patients with AAA. Patients who previously were not candidates for repair because of medical comorbidity may now be safely treated with endovascular repair.     

Rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm: concurrent comparison of outcome of those occurring after endovascular repair versus those occurring without previous treatment in an 11-year single-center experience

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this single-center study was to compare findings at presentation and surgical outcome in patients in whom abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) ruptured after endovascular repair and patients in whom AAAs ruptured before any treatment, over a defined period. METHODS: From May 1992 to September 2003, 1043 patients underwent elective repair of intact infrarenal AAAs. Endovascular repair was performed in 609 patients, and open repair in 434 patients. Eighteen of 609 patients (3%) who underwent endovascular AAA repair required treatment because of rupture of the aneurysm after a mean of 29 months (group 1). During the same 11-year period, another 91 patients without previous treatment required urgent repair of a ruptured AAA (group 2). Rupture was diagnosed at contrast material-enhanced computed tomography or by presence of extramural extravasation of blood at open repair. Except for a higher incidence of women in group 2, patients in both groups were similar with regard to demographics and clinical characteristics but differed in findings at presentation. Eight patients in group 1 had a known endoleak before AAA rupture, whereas contrast-enhanced computed tomography, performed in 15 patients at presentation, demonstrated an endoleak in all. Hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg) was noted at presentation in 4 of 18 patients (22%) in group 1 and 76 of 91 patients (84%) in group 2. All patients underwent open repair via a transperitoneal approach, except for 4 patients in group 1 and 3 patients in group 2 who underwent endovascular repair of ruptured AAAs. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with hypotension at presentation in group 1 (4 of 18) was significantly less than in group 2 (76 of 91; P < .01). The difference in perioperative (30 day) mortality rate in group 1 (3 of 18; 16.6%) compared with group 2 (49 of 91; 53.8%) was also significant (P < .01). The outcome in group 1 was therefore superior to that in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that endovascular AAA repair complicated by endoleak does not prevent rupture. The data suggest, however, that rupture, when it occurs in these circumstances, may not be accompanied by such major hemodynamic changes and high mortality as rupture of an untreated AAA. Further long-term follow-up and analysis in a larger group of patients are required to confirm the apparent intermediate level of protection afforded by failed endovascular repair, which does not prevent rupture but enhances survival after operation to treat rupture, possibly by ameliorating the hemodynamic changes associated with the rupture process.     

Endovascular management of abdominal aortic aneurysms

An estimated 1.5 million people in the United States have abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) with more than 200000 American diagnosed each year. The natural history of AAAs is to expand and rupture, accounting for an estimated 15000 deaths per year. Thus, the major impetus for AAA repair is for prophylaxis against aneurysm-related death. The standard open surgical repair of AAAs is a well-established and durable procedure. However, as with all other major abdominal surgical operations, associated significant morbidity and mortality exist, along with prolonged recovery and various late complications. Furthermore, both mortality and morbidity increase significantly with advanced patient age and associated co-morbid disease states. Endovascular AAA repair using covered stent-grafts offers a significantly less invasive alternative to conventional open-surgical repair. A considerable reduction in hospital stay has been demonstrated, with early return to preoperative levels of activity. Patients previously considered unsuitable for open repair can often receive treatment for aneurysms with endovascular techniques. Current estimates are that more than 1/2 all infrarenal AAAs will be repaired using endovascular approach in the future. Despite the minimally-invasiveness of this new treatment, there are unanswered questions as to the durability and efficacy of devices, which results in concerns about their ability to successfully protect the patient from subsequent rupture. Three devices are commercially available and have been extensively used for implantation in the United States with a 4th device recently receiving approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In this review article, endovascular management of AAAs with these devices is described, as are the design and deployment techniques of the currently available endografts.     

Endovascular repair versus open surgery in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: clinical outcomes with 1-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of treatment after endovascular repair and open surgery in patients with ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), including 1-year follow-up. METHODS: All consecutive conscious patients with ruptured infrarenal AAAs who presented to our tertiary care teaching hospital between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2005, were included in this study (n = 55). Twenty-six patients underwent endovascular repair, and 29 patients underwent open surgery. Patients who were hemodynamically too unstable to undergo a computed tomography angiography scan were excluded. Outcomes evaluated were intraoperative mortality, 30-day mortality, systemic complications, complications necessitating surgical intervention, and mortality and complications during 1-year follow-up. The statistical tests we used were the Student t test, chi2 test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test (two sided; alpha = .05). RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 8 (31%) of 26 patients who underwent endovascular repair and 9 (31%) of 29 patients who underwent open surgery (P = .98). Systemic complications and complications necessitating surgical intervention during the initial hospital stay were similar in both treatment groups (8/26 [31%] and 5/26 [19%] for endovascular repair, respectively, and 9/29 [31%] and 8/29 [28%] for open surgery, respectively; P > .40). During 1-year follow-up, two patients initially treated with endovascular repair died as a result of non-aneurysm-related causes; no death occurred in the open surgery group. Complications during 1-year follow-up were 1 (5%) of 20 for endovascular repair and 4 (16%) of 25 for open surgery (P = .36). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our study with a highly selected population, the mortality and complication rates after endovascular repair may be similar compared with those after open surgery in patients treated for ruptured infrarenal AAAs.     

Conservative observational management with selective delayed repair for large abdominal aortic aneurysms in high risk patients

AIM: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) larger than 5.5 cm should generally undergo elective repair. However, some of these patients have serious comorbid conditions, which greatly increase operative risk. This study evaluated the outcomes of nonoperative, observational management and selective delayed AAA repair in high-risk patients with large infrarenal and pararenal AAAs. METHODS: Among 226 patients with AAAs >5.5 cm, we selected 72 with AAAs 5.6-12.0 cm (mean 7.0 cm) for periods of nonoperative management because of their prohibitive surgical risks. Comorbid factors included a low ejection fraction of 15-34% (mean 22%) in 18 patients; FEV1 <50% (mean 38%) in 25; prior laparotomy in 10; and morbid obesity in 22. Follow-up was complete in the 72 patients for the 6-76 months (mean 23 months) that they were treated nonoperatively. Fifty-three patients ultimately underwent repair because of AAA enlargement or onset of symptoms after 6-72 months (mean 19 months) of observational treatment. RESULTS: Of the 72 selected patients, 54 (75%) are living and 18 (25%) are dead. Seven patients undergoing only nonoperative treatment presently survive after 28-76 months (mean 48 months). Of the 18 deaths, AAA rupture occurred in only 3 patients (4%) who had been observed for 12, 31, and 72 months before rupture. Nine other deaths (13%) occurred after 6-72 months from comorbidities unrelated to the patient's AAA. Six of the 53 patients undergoing delayed AAA repair died within 30 days of operation (11% mortality). The mortality for the 154 good risk AAA patients, who underwent prompt open or endovascular repair, was 2.2%. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that some patients with large AAAs and serious comorbidities are acceptably managed for long periods (6-76 months) by nonoperative means. Substantial delays of 12 to 76 months resulted in an AAA rupture rate of only 4%, while 13% of these patients (9 of 72) died of their comorbidities unrelated to AAA rupture or surgery and mortality in this group of patients, when operated on, was 11% (6 of 53). These findings support the selective use of nonoperative observational management in some patients with large AAAs and serious comorbidities.     

Conservatism and new technology: the impact on abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

The last decade has represented a time of fundamental change in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Potentially, vascular surgeons will either acquire catheter-based skills or relinquish the care for many patients with infrarenal AAA. We investigated AAA referral patterns and method of AAA repair after the establishment of an endovascular AAA program at our institution. We conducted a retrospective review of elective AAA repairs after the initiation of an endovascular AAA program in April 1994. Six vascular surgeons performed all procedures with a clear distinction between the surgeons (n=3) who performed traditional AAA repair only and those (n=3) who managed AAAs by means of either endovascular or traditional treatment. From April 1994 through December 2000, 740 elective AAA repairs were performed. During this time the mean number of AAA repairs has been 106/year ranging from 75 to 155/year. More notable however is the steady increase in the percentage of endovascular AAA repairs from 6 per cent of all AAA repairs in 1994 to 61 per cent in 2000. During this time traditional surgeons have experienced a plateau in total AAA repairs performed per year with their number of open repairs decreasing by 36 per cent. At the same time endovascular surgeons have seen a progressive rise in total AAA cases including an increase of 200 per cent in open repairs and of 1367 per cent in endovascular repairs. Our vascular surgeons who repair AAA utilizing both endovascular and open techniques have experienced an increase in aneurysm referrals since the advent of an endovascular AAA program. Those who have not adopted endovascular skills have seen a decline in their aneurysm practice. The larger question about whether or not to embrace new technology before the availability of long-term follow-up remains unanswered.     

Nonoperative management with selective delayed surgery for large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients at high risk

OBJECTIVE: An accepted fact is that abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) larger than 5.5 cm should undergo elective repair. However, subsets of these patients have serious comorbid conditions, which greatly increase operative risk. This study evaluated the outcomes of periods of protracted nonoperative observational management with selective delayed surgery in patients at high risk with large infrarenal and pararenal AAAs. METHODS: Among 226 patients with AAAs more than 5.5 cm, we selected 72 with AAAs from 5.6 to 12.0 cm (mean, 7.0 cm) for periods of nonoperative management because of their prohibitive surgical risks. Comorbid factors included a low ejection fraction of 15% to 34% (mean, 22%) in 18 patients, 1 second forced expiratory volume less than 50% (mean, 38%) in 25, prior laparotomy in 10, and morbid obesity in 22. Follow-up examination was complete in the 72 patients for the 6 to 76 months (mean, 23 months) that they underwent nonoperative treatment. Fifty-three patients ultimately underwent operation because of AAA enlargement or onset of symptoms after 6 to 72 months (mean, 19 months) of nonoperative treatment. RESULTS: Of the 72 selected patients, 54 (75%) are living and 18 (25%) are dead. Seven patients who underwent only nonoperative treatment presently survive after 28 to 76 months (mean, 48 months). Of the 18 deaths, AAA rupture occurred in only three patients (4%) who were observed for 12, 31, and 72 months before rupture. Nine other deaths (13%) occurred after 6 to 72 months from comorbidities unrelated to the AAA. Six of the 53 patients who underwent delayed operation died within 30 days of operation (11% mortality rate). The mortality rate for the 154 good-risk patients with an AAA who underwent prompt open or endovascular repair was 2.2%. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that some patients with large AAAs and serious comorbidities are acceptably managed for long periods (6 to 76 months) with nonoperative means. Substantial delays of 12 to 76 months resulted in an AAA rupture rate of only 4%, and 13% of these patients (nine of 72) died of comorbidities unrelated to AAA rupture or surgery. Mortality rate in this group of patients, when operated, was 11% (six of 53). These findings support the selective use of nonoperative management in some patients with large AAAs and serious comorbidities.