Open Surgery versus Endovascular Surgery in the Treatment of the Descendent Thoracic Aortic Disease
Introduction: Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) has increased worldwide more than open repair in the last few years.Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of TEVAR versus open surgery at Fundación Cardio Infantil (Bogota, Colombia), between 2002 and 2011.Methods: Retrospective analysis of...
| Autor Principal: | Peláez, Mauricio; Fundación Cardio Infantil |
|---|---|
| Otros Autores: | Roa, José Luis; Fundación Cardio Infantil, Montes, Félix; Fundación Cardio Infantil, Umaña, Juan Pablo; Fundación Cardio Infantil, Sandoval, Néstor; Fundación Cardio Infantil, Camacho Mackenzie, Jaime; Fundación Cardio Infantil |
| Formato: | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| Idioma: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
2012
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: |
http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/vnimedica/article/view/16139 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: |
Introduction: Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR) has increased worldwide more than open repair in the last few years.Objective: To compare clinical outcomes of TEVAR versus open surgery at Fundación Cardio Infantil (Bogota, Colombia), between 2002 and 2011.Methods: Retrospective analysis of the cohort of patients with open repair (group 1) in comparison to TEVAR (group 2). In each group, surgical time, morbidity rates (infection, hemorrhage, medular ischemia, cerebrovascular event, and postoperative renal failure), mortality, reintervention, and hospital stay were evaluated. For comparisons a univariate analysis was used, being a p< 0.05 statistically significant.Results: 57 patients were included (26 % open repair; 74 % TEVAR). Two type 1 endoleaks on group 2 and 1 bleeding patient in group 1 required a second surgery. Surgical mortality was 20 % in group 1, and 2.3 % in group 2); surgical time was 398 ± 180 (group 1) versus 85.5 ± 35 min (group 2) (p = 0.0001); and hospital stay was 9,8 days (group 1) and 5.3 days (group 2). Average follow-up time was 4.8 ± 3.1 years.Conclusions: TEVAR may be associated with less morbidity, mortality, surgical time, and hospital stay than open repair, although the populations included were not strictly comparable. New, prospective studies, ideally randomized,are needed to support the long term benefits of this type of repair. |
|---|