Your institution is subscribed to Read Institutional Edition. Log in or Sign Up to read full text articles.


Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass in a United States academic center

Jonathan Bath, Maham Rahimi, Jose O Leite, Willythssa Pierre-Louis, Joseph Giglia
Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2018 November 7

BACKGROUND: Although aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) is preferentially treated endovascularly, some patients are still better served with an aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). For those patients, surgical treatment options include both standard open operations as well as laparoscopic ABF (LapABF). Several European centers perform LapABF with favorable results instead of open surgery, but this has not been widely embraced in the United States. We reviewed our ten-year experience with LapABF, evolving from a completely laparoscopic to a standardized laparoscopic-assisted approach.

METHODS: A retrospective review of all laparoscopic aortic operations performed at a single US academic institution from 2005 to 2015 was completed. Demographics, co-morbidities, intraoperative parameters and clinical outcomes were recorded. Patients were excluded from consideration for laparoscopic surgery if they had previous aortic surgery, aneurysmal disease or gastrointestinal pathology (e.g. diverticulitis or an enteric stoma).

RESULTS: Thirty men and sixteen women were treated, (n=46) with a mean age of 55.7 (range 38-75 years). All operations were performed by a single surgeon. LapABF was successfully completed in 95.6%. A completely laparoscopic approach was undertaken in eight patients and a laparoscopic-assisted approach was used in the remaining 38 patients. Mean follow-up was 46 months (range 1 to 131). The indication for operation was claudication (n=35, 76%), rest pain (n=8, 17%) or tissue loss (n=3, 7%). Twenty-one limbs had a history of a prior failed aortoiliac endovascular intervention (23%). Median length of stay was 6 days (range 2-30). Within 30 days there were two myocardial infarctions (4.3%), one transient ischemic attack (2.2%) and one death (2.2%). Re-intervention was performed in 12 patients over the course of the study period (26.1%). Primary, primary-assisted and secondary patency was 79.4%, 93.9% and 94.9% at 60 months, respectively. Overall mortality was 17% with a mean duration of follow-up of 60 months (range 1-116). Multivariable analysis revealed coronary artery disease (CAD; p=0.03) conferred a sixteenfold risk for death during long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: In this large US series of LapABF, we observed acceptable long-term patency, short length of stay and minimal morbidity. We suggest that this standardized approach for laparoscopicassisted ABF is a viable option for patients with AIOD not suitable for endovascular therapy. The use of laparoscopic-assisted ABF affords practitioners the benefits of a completely laparoscopic approach while reducing the duration and complexity of the operation. Given the rate of re-interventions in the early era practitioners should be aware of the Learning curve with this approach.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article


You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.


Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"

We want to hear from doctors like you!

Take a second to answer a survey question.