[Comparison of endovascular repair and open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm]

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness between conventional open repair (OR) and endovascular repair (EVRAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

METHODS: Between March 2000 and July 2011, 48 cases of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were treated by conventional OR in 40 cases (OR group) or by EVRAR in 8 cases (EVRAR group). There was no significant difference in age, sex, the neck length (less than 2 cm), the neck angulation of aneurysm (more than 60 degrees), iliac severe tortuosity, preoperative systolic pressure, and preoperative comorbidity between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The blood transfusion volume, operation time, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative complications, reinterventions, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference in 24-hour and 30-day mortality rates and non graft-related complications between 2 groups (P > 0.05). EVRAR group was significantly better than OR group in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay (P < 0.05), but OR group was significantly better than EVRAR group in reinterventions and graft-related complications (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: EVRAR has obvious advantages in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay, so it is feasible for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with precise anatomical suitability.