SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal procedures in aortoiliac occlusive diseases

Aortoiliyak tıkayıcı arter hastalıklarının cerrahi tedavisinde retroperitoneal ve transperitoneal yaklaşımların karşılaştırılması

Nurkay KATRANCIOĞLU
Hakan KUTLU
Ünal AYDIN
Halil BAŞEL
Müge TAŞDEMİR
Sadiye Deniz ÖZSOY
Ayşenur DOSTBİL
Andussamed HAZAR
Pages
249–253
Publication Date
2022-09-02
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There were no statistically significant differences when the other complication parameters [wound complications (p=0.09), paralitic ileus (p=0.14), re-operation (p=0.46), 30th day mortality (p=0.30)] were considered.Conclusion: When the results are compared, it is seen that RP procedure is more advantageous than TP procedure in the surgical treatment of AIOD.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: In this study, transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) procedures in the surgical treatment of aortoiliac occlusive diseases (AIOD) were compared advantages and disadvantages of these procedures were evaluated.Methods: Fifty-five patients who underwent surgery for AIOD between October 2003 and August 2007 were retrospectively evaluated.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Retroperitoneal technique was performed in 30 patients and TP technique was performed in 25 patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There were no statistically significant differences when the other complication parameters [wound complications (p=0.09), paralitic ileus (p=0.14), re-operation (p=0.46), 30th day mortality (p=0.30)] were considered.Conclusion: When the results are compared, it is seen that RP procedure is more advantageous than TP procedure in the surgical treatment of AIOD.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: In this study, transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) procedures in the surgical treatment of aortoiliac occlusive diseases (AIOD) were compared advantages and disadvantages of these procedures were evaluated.Methods: Fifty-five patients who underwent surgery for AIOD between October 2003 and August 2007 were retrospectively evaluated. Retroperitoneal technique was performed in 30 patients and TP technique was performed in 25 patients. Clinical features, risk factors, peri- and postoperative medical data were analyzed and compared between two groups.Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical features and risk factors. Of the eight operative parameters, five were in favor of RP procedure. Duration of intensive care unit stay (p<0.01), duration of hospital stay (p<0.01), return of bowel functions (p<0.01), beginning time of oral feeding (p<0.01), effort pain score (p<0.01) were significantly better than those observed in TP group. Pulmonary complications were also fewer in RP group (p=0.02) but the difference was not statistically significant for this parameter. There were no statistically significant differences when the other complication parameters [wound complications (p=0.09), paralitic ileus (p=0.14), re-operation (p=0.46), 30th day mortality (p=0.30)] were considered.Conclusion: When the results are compared, it is seen that RP procedure is more advantageous than TP procedure in the surgical treatment of AIOD.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada aortoiliyak tıkayıcı arter hastalıklarının (AİTAH) cerrahi tedavisinde transperitoneal (TP) ve retroperitoneal (RP) yaklaşımlar karşılaştırıldı, avantaj ve dezavantajları değerlendirildi.Çalışma planı: Ekim 2003-Ağustos 2007 tarihleri arasında AİTAH için cerrahi tedavi uygulanan 55 hasta geriye yönelik olarak değerlendirildi. Çalışmaya alınan hastaların 30�u RP, 25�i TP yöntemiyle ameliyat edildi. Klinik özellikler, risk faktörleri, ameliyat sırası ve sonrası bulgular iki grup arasında analiz edildi ve karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: Klinik özellikler ve risk faktörleri açısından iki grup arasında anlamlı bir fark saptanmadı. Sekiz cerrahi parametreden beşi RP yaklaşım lehine sonuç verdi. Yoğun bakım ünitesinde kalış süresi (p<0.01), hastanede kalış süresi (p<0.01), bağırsak fonksiyonlarının geri dönüş süresi (p<0.01), oral gıda alımına geçiş süresi (p<0.01), efor ağrı skoru (p<0.01) TP yaklaşıma göre anlamlı derecede daha iyiydi. Pulmoner komplikasyonlar da RP grubunda daha az izlendi ancak bu fark anlamlı bulunmadı. (p=0.02). Diğer komplikasyonlarda [yara yeri komplikasyonları (p=0.09), paralitik ileus (p=0.14), tekrar ameliyat oranı (p=0.46), ameliyat sonrası 30. gün mortalite oranı (p=0.30)] arasında ise anlamlı bir fark bulunmadı.Sonuç: Karşılaştırılan parametreler AİTAH�nin cerrahi tedavisinde RP yaklaşımın TP yaklaşımdan daha avantajlı olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KATRANCIOĞLU, N., KUTLU, H., AYDIN, Ü., BAŞEL, H., TAŞDEMİR, M., ÖZSOY, S. D., DOSTBİL, A., HAZAR, A. (2022). Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal procedures in aortoiliac occlusive diseases. Türk Göğüs Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 4, 249–253. https://ajindex.com/articles/425040

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Tosenovsky P, Janousek L, Lipar K, Moravec M. Left retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for abdominal aortic surgery - retrospective comparison of intraoperative and postoperative data. Bratisl Lek Listy 2003;104:352-5
  2. Arko FR, Bohannon WT, Mettauer M, Lee SD, Patterson DE, Manning LG, et al. Retroperitoneal approach for aortic surgery: is it worth it? Cardiovasc Surg 2001;9:20-6
  3. Muehling BM, Meierhenrich R, Thiere M, Bischoff G, Oberhuber A, Orend KH, et al. The retroperitoneal approach combined with epidural anesthesia reduces morbidity in elective infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2009;8:35-9
  4. Haga M, Inaba M, Yamamto H, Akasaka N, Uchida H, Kawai S, et al. Comparision of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach for infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair. Jpn J. Cardiovasc Surg 2000;29:305-8
  5. Kirby LB, Rosenthal D, Atkins CP, Brown GA, Matsuura JH, Clark MD, et al. Comparison between the transabdominal and retroperitoneal approaches for aortic reconstruction in patients at high risk. J Vasc Surg 1999;30:400-5
  6. Quiñones-Baldrich WJ, Garner C, Caswell D, Ahn SS, Gelabert HA, Machleder HI, et al. Endovascular, transperitoneal, and retroperitoneal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: results and costs. J Vasc Surg 1999;30:59-67
  7. Carrel T, Niederhäuser U, Laske A, Bauer E, Schönbeck M, von Segesser LK, et al. Retroperitoneal approach in selective surgery of the infrarenal aorta. Helv Chir Acta 1992;58:583-8. [Abstract] 8) Komori K, Okazaki J, Kawasaki K, Kuma S, Eguchi D, Mawatari K, et al. Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach for reconstruction of abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with previous laparotomy. International Journal of Angiology 2005;6:230-3
  8. Sicard GA, Reilly JM, Rubin BG, Thompson RW, Allen BT, Flye MW, et al. Transabdominal versus retroperitoneal incision for abdominal aortic surgery: report of a prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 1995;21:174-81
  9. Yamak B, Mavitaş B, Bardakçı H, Biriciklioğlu L, Ulus T, İşçan Z, et al. İnfrarenal aortik lezyonların cerrahisinde retroperitoneal yaklaşım: 9 vakanın erken sonuçları: Damar Cerrahisi Derg 1998;1:1-5
  10. Sieunarine K, Lawrence-Brown MM, Goodman MA. Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches for infrarenal aortic surgery: early and late results. Cardiovasc Surg 1997;5:71-6
  11. Cambria RP, Brewster DC, Abbott WM, Freehan M, Megerman J, LaMuraglia G, et al. Transperitoneal versus r