主动脉腔内修复术双Perclose ProGlide交叉缝合与传统缝合穿刺点的疗效比较

目的通过与传统缝合比较,探讨主动脉腔内修复术采用双Perclose ProGlide交叉缝合修复20F或22F穿刺点的优缺点,为临床穿刺点修复方法选择提供参考。方法 2007年6月-2011年5月,103例115侧采用外径为20F或22F输送鞘行主动脉腔内修复术,其中采用双Perclose ProGlide交叉缝合修复穿刺点57例64侧(双Perclose组),传统缝合修复46例51侧(传统缝合组)。两组患者年龄、性别、病程等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。结果双Perclose组不同病种患者的手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间均明显优于传统缝合组(P<0.05)。术后双Perclose组5例(5侧)、传统缝合组2例(2侧)出现不同程度腹股沟区皮下瘀血;双Perclose组2例(2侧)皮肤穿刺点处淋巴漏,传统缝合组6例(8侧)切口发生淋巴漏。双Perclose组术后早期并发症发生率为7.8%(5/64),传统缝合组为15.7%(8/51),比较差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.76,P=0.19)。双Perclose组技术成功率为96.9%(62/64),传统缝合组为100%(51/51),差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.31,P=0.50)。两组患者术后均获随访,双Perclose组随访时间2～19个月,平均15个月;传统缝合组随访时间2～18个月,平均14个月。双Perclose组1例(1侧)术后3个月出现原穿刺点处假性动脉瘤,给予切开缝合;其余患者无缝合动脉狭窄、假性动脉瘤形成等中期并发症发生。双Perclose组中期并发症发生率为1.6%(1/64),传统缝合组为0,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P=1.000)。结论与传统缝合技术相比,双PercloseProGlide交叉缝合技术修复主动脉腔内修复术中20F或22F穿刺点疗效相似,但在控制手术时间、术中出血量及住院时间方面具有明显优势。

EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON BETWEEN DOUBLE Perclose ProGlide CROSSING SUTURE AND TRADITIONAL SUTURE FOR CLOSURE OF PUNCTURE SITES IN ENDOVASCULAR AORTIC REPAIR

Objective To compare the advantages and disadvantages between double Perclose ProGlide crossing suture and traditional suture for the closure of 20F or 22F access points so as to provide a basis for selecting appropriate approach to repair the puncture points in endovascular aortic repair. Methods Between June 2007 and May 2011, 103 patients (115 common femoral arteries) underwent endovascular aortic repair using sheaths of 20F or 22F (outer diameter); double Perclose ProGlide crossing suture was performed for closure of puncture sites in 57 cases (64 common femoral arteries) (double Perclose group) and traditional suture in 46 cases (51 common femoral arteries) (traditional group). There was no significant difference in age, gender, or disease duration between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Results The operation time, blood loss, and hospitalization days of double Perclose group were significantly better than those of traditional group (P < 0.05). Ecchymoma in inguinal region and lymphatic leakage occurred in 5 cases (5 common femoral arteries) and 2 cases (2 common femoral arteries) of double Perclose group respectively, in 2 cases (2 common femoral arteries) and 6 cases (8 common femoral arteries) of traditional group respectively; no significant difference was found in the rate of the early complication between double Perclose group and traditional group (7.8% vs. 15.7%, χ2=1.76, P=0.19). The technique success rate of double Perclose group was 96.9% (62/64), and was 100% (51/51) in traditional group, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.31, P=0.50). All patients were followed up, 2-19 months (mean, 15 months) in double Perclose group and 2-18 months (mean, 14 months) in traditional group. Pseudoaneurysm occurred in the puncture region at 3 months in 1 case (1 common femoral artery) of double Perclose group, and incision and suture therapy was performed; no arteriostenosis or pseudoaneurysm occurred in other cases; and the rate of mid-term complication was 1.6% (1/64) in double Perclose group and was 0 in traditional group, showing no significant difference (P=1.000). Conclusion Double Perclose ProGlide crossing suture has the same effectiveness to traditional surture in repairing the puncture point with 20F or 22F, but it is superior to traditional suture in reducing operation time, blood loss, and hospitalization days.