[Control study of total percutaneous access with preclose technique versus open femoral artery exposure for endovascular aneurysm repair].

OBJECTIVE: To compare total percutaneous access using preclose technique with femoral artery cut-down in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and assess the safety and feasibility of preclose technique. METHODS: In the study, 81 cases undergoing EVAR from Dec. 2011 to Nov. 2014 in Peking University People's Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative CT angiography (CTA) showed presence of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm or descending aortic aneurysm in all the cases. The maximum diameter of aneurysm >4.5 cm met the indications for surgical treatment. The conditions of bilateral femoral artery and iliac artery CTA showed were good, and there was no moderate or severe stenosis, nor was there any severe calcification in anterior wall of femoral artery. Not only were the cases fit for percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR), but also feasible with open endovascular aneurysm repair (OEVAR). According to the intention of the patients about the surgical incision, the cases were divided into group PEVAR and group OEVAR. The data of the general situation, operation time, blood loss, technical success rate, length of hospital stay after procedure and wound complications were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: In the study, 44 cases (78 incisions) were enrolled in group PEVAR and 37 cases (65 incisions) in group OEVAR. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), accompanying diseases, average number of stents and outer diameter of stent delivery system. Average operation time of group PEVAR was less than that of group OEVAR [(119.1±102.0) min vs. (163.6±61.9) min, P=0.025]. The blood loss in group PEVAR was less than that in group OEVAR [(64.7±97.0) mL vs. (98.6±88.3) mL], but there was no significant difference (P=0.106). There was no difference in the technical success rate (94.9% vs.95.4%, P=1.000). The average length of hospital stay after procedure was significantly shorter in group PEVAR [(7.8±2.8) d vs.(12.3±7.2) d, P<0.001]. There were 2 cases with subcutaneous hematoma of wound in group PEVAR and 7 cases of wound complications that occurred in group OEVAR including 3 cases with lymphatic leakage, 3 cases with lower limb ischemia and 1 case with subcutaneous hematoma. The analysis showed that PEVAR could reduce the wound complications (2.6%vs.10.8%), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.079). CONCLUSION: Using preclose technique in EVAR is safe and effective. It can shorten the operation time and length of hospital stay after procedure.