Erectile Function After Open or Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has been reported to be associated with impairment of sexual function in men, most likely because of autonomic nerve injury and pelvic blood flow changes. Endovascular aneurysm repair does not involve dissection in the area of the iliac bifurcation and therefore may be associated with lower incidence of sexual dysfunction as compared to open repair. We conducted a retrospective study of males after open and endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair to determine if there is a significant difference in the incidence of sexual dysfunction between the two procedures. A modified International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire was used to access sexual function before and after aneurysm repair. The questionnaire was mailed to all male patients who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from January 1, 1999 to July 15, 2002. The questionnaire asked patients questions regarding their sexual function before and 3 months after the repair. Questionnaire scores for domains of sexual function (erectile function, orgasmic function, intercourse satisfaction, and overall satisfaction) as well as the total questionnaire score were analyzed. The chi-square and Wilcoxons signed ranks test were used for statistical comparisons, with p < 0.05 considered significant. Logistic regression was used to examine association. Two hundred ninety-three questionnaires were mailed and 90 were returned completed. There was no difference for the total questionnaire score or the erectile function score before the procedure. Based on the questionnaire score, erectile function worsened after open AAA repair (p = 0.002). Orgasmic function also deteriorated after open AAA repair (p = 0.001). Endovascular repair was not accompanied by decreased erectile or orgasmic function (p = 0.057 and p = 0.068, respectively). Impairment of erectile function was not associated with age, diabetes, or the number of patent hypogastric arteries after aneurysm repair, but there was a significant association between impaired erectile function and open aneurysm repair (p = 0.036). Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms is associated with significantly less impairment of erectile and orgasmic function than that with open repair. Preservation of sexual function after endovascular as compared to open repair should be among the factors considered when weighing treatment options for an abdominal aortic aneurysm in a sexually active male.     

Percutaneous Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

In this prospective, nonrandomized study, we compared outcome with percutaneous femoral artery closure to that with open femoral arteriotomy in 95 patients who underwent endovascular AAA repair. Devices were introduced using 22 Fr and/or 16 Fr sheaths. The 8 Fr/10 Fr Perclose devices (Perclose Inc., Redwood City, CA) were used in an off-label "preclose technique." Thirty-three patients had bilateral open femoral arteriotomies, 44 patients had bilateral attempted percutaneous closure, and 18 patients had open femoral arteriotomy on one side and attempted percutaneous closure on the other side. Percutaneous closure was successful in 85% (47/55) of 16 Fr sheaths and 64% (29/45) of 22 Fr sheaths (p <0.027). BILATERAL PERCUTANEOUS CLOSURE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN 63% (28/44) OF PATIENTS. CONVERSION TO OPEN FEMORAL ARTERIOTOMY DUE TO BLEEDING OCCURRED IN 24 OF 106 PERCUTANEOUS ATTEMPTS. THERE WERE NO DISSECTIONS, ARTERIAL THROMBOSES, OR PSEUDOANEURYSMS ASSOCIATED WITH PERCUTANEOUS ARTERIAL CLOSURE. WOUND COMPLICATIONS WERE SEEN IN 3.6% (3/84) OF OPEN ARTERIOTOMIES AND 0.9% (1/106) OF ALL PERCUTANEOUS ATTEMPTS AND ARTERIAL CLOSURES (P > 0.05). Gender, previous femoral access, obesity, and iliac occlusive disease were not predictive of percutaneous failure. Procedural success for percutaneous AAA repair is affected by sheath size. Devices delivered through 16 Fr or smaller sheaths will have successful femoral artery closure rates of at least 85%.     

Impending Aneurysm Rupture after Endovascular Repair of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Abstract   An 81-year-old male presented with lower abdominal pain radiating to back associated with diaphoresis. He received endovascular repair of an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm 21 months ago. Triple phase abdominal CT showed impending aneurysm rupture secondary to endoleak. After re-stenting and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, he had an uneventful recovery later.     

Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair via Endovascular Versus Open Retroperitoneal Approach

The beneficial effects of open surgical abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair via a left retroperitoneal approach have been established. We compared the short-term outcome of infrarenal AAA repair via an endovascular approach with that of an open retroperitoneal approach. From October 2001 to April 2003, patients with infrarenal AAA >5 cm were offered repair via an endovascular approach (group I) with a variety of industry-made stent grafts or with an open retroperitoneal surgical approach (group II). Data were prospectively collected in the vascular registry and complications were analyzed. Data comparison between the two groups was done by using chi-squared analysis and two-tailed Students t-test. Statistical significance was identified at p < 0.05. Over an 18-month period, 492 patients underwent evaluation for AAA. Of these, 446 patients had infrarenal AAA and underwent either endovascular (group I: n=175, male 85%, female 15%) or open surgical repair (group II: n=232, male 74%, female 26%) via a left retroperitoneal approach. Group I patients had a higher incidence of coronary artery disease (66% vs. 35%, p < 0.05), hypertension (74% vs. 43%, p < 0.05), chronic obstructed pulmonary disease (29% vs. 12%, p < 0.05), and diabetes mellitus (20% vs. 7%, p < 0.05), a lower mean amount of intraoperative blood loss (277 cc vs. 1452 cc, p < 0.05), and shorter length of stay in the hospital (1.7 days vs., 7.3 days, p < 0.05). Group I also had fewer complications of myocardial infarction (1.7% vs. 5.2%, p=NS), renal failure (0% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.05), pulmonary failure (1.7% vs. 2.6%, p=NS), ischemic colitis requiring colectomy (0.6% vs. 2.6%, p < 0.05), multisystem organ failure (0% vs. 1.3%, p=NS), and death (0.6% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.05). Despite increased preexisting comorbidities, patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair had less morbidity, mortality, and blood loss and a shorter in-hospital length of stay than patients undergoing open surgical aneurysm repair via a left retroperitoneal approach.Presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Peripheral Vascular Surgery Society, Chicago, IL, June 7, 2003.     

腹主动脉瘤开腹手术与腔内治疗的比较

目的：比较腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术与开放手术的疗效。方法：对35例肾下型腹主动脉瘤患者分别进行开放手术（21例）与腔内修复术（14例）治疗,比较两组术前评估、手术、围手术期及术后随访情况。结果：腔内修复组年龄较高（P〈0.05）,手术时间、术中出血量、输血量较开腹手术低（P〈0.01）,所需营养支持、监护、卧床时间短（P〈0.01）,围手术期并发症发生率低（P〈0.05）,但远期并发症发生率较高（P〈0.05）。结论：腹主动脉瘤腔内支架治疗较为安全,创伤更小,患者恢复速度较快,适合于高龄及合并症较多的患者。传统开放手术适于年轻、合并症少及无法行腔内修复术的患者。