Cutdown Technique is Superior to Fascial Closure for Femoral Artery Access after Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair.

OBJECTIVES: Arterial access closure after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be achieved using three different approaches: percutaneous closure devices, surgical exposure and direct suture ("cutdown"), and the less invasive fascial closure technique. The aim of this study was to report on the intra-operative, in hospital, and three month outcome of fascial closure and cutdown, and to determine risk factors for failure. METHODS: The primary outcome was assessed in 439 groins in 225 elective EVAR patients recruited consecutively and prospectively from February 1, 2011 to August 31, 2014. During the study period, fascial closure and cutdown were first and second line closing techniques. Compared with fascial closure, procedures completed with cutdown had lower BMI, thinner subcutaneous tissue of the groin and more complex femoral anatomy. Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and duplex ultrasound (DUS) of the groin were performed pre-operatively and three months after EVAR. Retrospective review of medical records and CTA were used to determine intra-operative and in hospital outcome, and risk factors for failure. RESULTS: In total, 64%, 33%, and 3% were completed with fascial closure, cutdown, and closure device, respectively. Intra-operative, in hospital, and three month technical success rates of fascial closure vs. cutdown were 91% (283/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins), 89% (277/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins), and 89% (275/310 groins) vs. 99% (114/115 groins) (p < .001). Wound complications within three months were infrequent for both methods. No risk factor was significantly associated with failure after fascial closure. CONCLUSION: This study shows that cutdown is superior to fascial closure for femoral artery access after elective EVAR. In acute EVAR, however, fascial closure is still considered to be a good and fast method, and it has been kept in the present authors' armamentarium for this indication.

Risk factors for incisional hernia repair after aortic reconstructive surgery in a nationwide study.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm disease has been hypothesized as associated with the development of abdominal wall hernia. We evaluated the risk factors for incisional hernia repair after open elective aortic reconstructive surgery for aortoiliac occlusive disease and abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively recorded data in nationwide databases was carried out, with merged data from the Danish Vascular Registry (January 2006-January 2012), the Danish Ventral Hernia Database (January 2007-January 2012), and the Danish National Patient Register (January 2007-January 2012) to obtain 100% follow-up for incisional hernia repair in patients undergoing open elective aortic reconstructive surgery. The predefined risk factors of age, sex, American Association of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, smoking status, type of aortic surgery, and type of incision were tested in a multivariate Cox regression model for the risk of incisional hernia repair. RESULTS: We identified 2597 patients, of whom 838 and 1759 underwent open elective surgery for an aortoiliac occlusive disease and abdominal aortic aneurysm, respectively. The median follow-up was 28.9 months (range, 0-71.6 months), and the cumulative risk of hernia repair after aortic reconstructive surgery was 10.4% after 6 years of follow-up. Body mass index >25.0 kg/m(2) (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.46) and abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.35) were significantly associated with incisional hernia repair. CONCLUSIONS: High body mass index and abdominal aortic aneurysm repair were independent risk factors for a subsequent incisional hernia surgery in patients undergoing aortic reconstructive surgery.

Moist wound healing compared with standard care of treatment of primary closed vascular surgical wounds: a prospective randomized controlled study.

This study was a randomized-controlled trial comparing the standard type of dry dressing, Mepore, with moist wound healing, using a hydrofiber dressing, Aquacel, in primary closed wounds after vascular surgery. The endpoints were patient comfort, cost-effectiveness, infections, wound complications, and length of hospital stay. One hundred and sixty patients were randomized to receive either Mepore or Aquacel dressing. There was no significant difference in patient comfort between the two groups, but a higher cost in the Aquacel group despite significantly fewer changes of dressings in these patients. No difference in the infection rate (13% vs. 11%, p=0.73), length of hospital stay, or wound complications was noted between the two groups. We conclude that although the Aquacel dressing needed significantly fewer changes than the conventional dressing, this did not influence the patient comfort. Moreover, the traditional dressing scheme was significantly less expensive.