北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2015, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (6): 957-961. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671167X.2015.06.012

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

股腘动脉TASCⅡ C/D型病变腔内重建与旁路手术的疗效对比

庄金满,李选△,李天润,董国祥,赵军,栾景源   

  1. (北京大学第三医院介入血管外科,北京100191)
  • 出版日期:2015-12-18 发布日期:2015-12-18
  • 通讯作者: 李选 E-mail:xuanli@vip.sina.com

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of endovascular reconstruction versus bypass surgery for trans-atlantic inter-society consensus Ⅱ C/D femoropopliteal artery lesion resulted from arteriosclerosisobliterans

ZHUANG Jin-man, LI Xuan△, LI Tian-run, DONG Guo-xiang, ZHAO Jun, LUAN Jing-yuan   

  1. (Department of Intervention Vascular Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China)
  • Online:2015-12-18 Published:2015-12-18
  • Contact: LI Xuan E-mail:xuanli@vip.sina.com

摘要:

目的:比较腔内重建与旁路手术两种方法治疗股腘动脉TASC Ⅱ(trans-atlantic inter-society consensus Ⅱ) C/D型病变的近、远期疗效。方法:回顾性分析2002年1月至2012年12月北京大学第三医院介入血管外科收治的103例(119条患肢)股腘动脉TASCⅡ C/D型病变患者的临床资料,其中71条患肢应用球囊扩张和/或支架植入重建股浅动脉血运(腔内组),48条患肢行旁路转流术(旁路组)。比较两组患者围手术期并发症发生率、死亡率、住院时间、近远期疗效、再手术率、1~10年通畅率及保肢率。结果:与腔内组相比,旁路组住院时间更长[(13.2±4.7) d vs.(6.5±3.1) d,P<0.001],并发症发生率和再手术率更高(10.4% vs.1.4%, P=0.039;58.3% vs. 31.0%,P=0.003),近期显效率更高(25.0% vs. 9.9%,P=0.027),远期恶化率更高[37.5% vs. 18.3%,P=0.019],1~10年一期及二期累积通畅率更高(P=0.001, P=0.001)。两组近期及远期总有效率相当(89.6% vs. 84.5%, P=0.426, 45.8% vs. 56.3%, P=0.260);保肢率差异无统计学意义(83.3% vs. 94.4%, P=0.051)。结论:腔内治疗对于股腘动脉TASC ⅡC/D型病变是一种安全、有效、微创的治疗方法。

关键词: 动脉硬化, 闭塞性, 股动脉, 腘动脉, 血管内手术

Abstract:

Objective:To study the clinical effects of endovascular reconstruction versus bypass surgery for TASC Ⅱ(trans-atlantic inter-society consensus Ⅱ) C/D femoropopliteal artery lesion resulted from arteriosclerosis obliterans. Methods:One hundred and three patients(119 limbs)accepted bypass surgery or endovascular therapy for TASCⅡ C/D femoropopliteal artery lesion between January 2002 and December 2012 at our institution were retrospectively assessed.All the patients were diagnosed with arteriosclerosis obliterins, and all their Rutherford classifications were from 2 to 5 degrees.Among them there were 71 limbs treated by endovascular reconstruction and the other 48 limbs were treated with bypass surgery.We evaluated the short term clinical effect according to the condition when patients left the hospital, and evaluated the long term clinical effect according to the results of the patients’ latest follow-up in 2014. Their clinical data before treatment, complication rates, death rates, hospital stays, short term and long term effects, reoperation rates, 1 to 10 years primary and secondary accumulative patency rates and limb salvage rates were compared.Results:There was no significant difference between the bypass group and the endovascular group on the mean age and ankle brachial index before treatment [(67.1±7.1) years(51 to 80 years) vs. (68.0±9.4) years (49 to 91 years),P=0.561;(0.41±0.23) vs. (0.40±0.26), P=0.928]. There were more TASCⅡ D patients in the bypass group than those in the endovascular group (P<0.001), and the rutherford classification was higher in the endovascular group than that in the bypass group. The difference in the mean follow-up between the bypass group and the endovascular group was not significant[(41.7±23.6) months vs. (59.5±41.6) months,P=0.065]. Five peri-operative complication cases occurred in the bypass group, including 2 cases of acute thrombosis,1 case of infection and 2 cases of heart failure, and only 1 complication case occurred in the endovascular group that was heart failure.The complication rate was higher in the bypass group than that in the endovascular group [10.4% vs. 1.4%, P=0.039]. And there was no death in both the groups.Compared with the endovascular group, the bypass group had a longer hospital stays [(13.2±4.7) d vs.(6.5±3.1) d,P<0.001],a higher reoperation rate (58.3% vs.31.0%,P=0.003), a better short term, obvious, and effective rate (25.0% vs. 9.9%, P=0.027),a worse long term deterioration rate (37.5% vs. 18.3%,P=0.019) and higher 1 to 10 years primary and secondary accumulative patency rates(P=0.001, P=0.001).There was no significant difference between the two groups on the increase of ankle brachial index[(0.34±0.28) vs. (0.31±0.23), P=0.371], and short term and long term total effective rates (89.6%  vs.84.5%, P=0.426; 45.8% vs. 56.3%, P=0.260), and limb salvage rate (83.3% vs.94.4%,P=0.051).Conclusion:Endovascular therapy is a safe, effective and minimally invasive therapy for TASCⅡ C/D femoropopliteal artery lesion resulted from arteriosclerosis obliterans.

Key words: Arteriosclerosis Obliterins, Femoral artery, Popliteral artery, Endovascular procedures surgery

中图分类号: 

  • R654.4
[1] 庄金满,李天润,李选,栾景源,王昌明,冯琦琛,韩金涛. Rotarex旋切导管在股腘动脉狭窄合并血栓形成中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(2): 328-332.
[2] 潘佳忻,朱赛楠,李双玲,王东信. 副肿瘤性天疱疮合并实体肿瘤的危重症患者术后远期结局的影响因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(5): 981-990.
[3] 庄金满,李天润,李选,栾景源,王昌明,冯琦琛,韩金涛. Rotarex经皮机械性血栓切除装置在急性下肢缺血中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(6): 1159-1162.
[4] 钱亚龙,徐帅,刘海鹰. 椎间盘镜辅助脊髓刺激电极植入治愈下肢缺血1例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(2): 378-381.
[5] 贾子昌,卞焕菊,李选,栾景源,王昌明,刘启佳,韩金涛. Neuroform EZ支架在治疗复杂症状性颅内动脉重度狭窄中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(5): 835-839.
[6] 庄金满,李选,李天润,赵军,栾景源,王昌明. 股浅动脉重建对下肢动脉硬化闭塞症治疗的随机病例对照研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(1): 153-157.
[7] 蒋京军, 卿洪琨, 张小明, 张学民, 李伟, 沈晨阳, 李清乐, 焦洋. 经皮穿刺缝合与股动脉切开在主动脉瘤腔内修复术中的对照研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(5): 850-854.
[8] 庄金满, 李选, 李天润, 傅军, 栾景源, 王昌明. 股腘动脉病变球囊扩张与支架植入的疗效对比研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(1): 160-165.
[9] 卿洪琨, 张学民, 蒋京军, 张小明, 何长顺, 孙占国. 自制髂动脉分支装置治疗腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后髂动脉瘤1例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2015, 47(5): 888-890.
[10] 熊焰,李晓霞,牟向东,李东,王颖,李挺. 肺毛细血管瘤病1例及文献回顾[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2015, 47(5): 865-869.
[11] 段鸿洲, 李良, 张扬, 张家湧, 鲍圣德. 床突旁动脉瘤的外科治疗[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2015, 47(4): 679-684.
[12] 张学民, 孙占国, 郑宝石, 黄凯, 张小明, 蒋京军, 何长顺. 源自第四鳃弓的主动脉弓部动脉瘤的腔内治疗[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2015, 47(3): 548-550.
[13] 孙可欣, 刘志, 曹亚英, 隽娟, 项骁, 杨成, 黄少平, 刘晓芬, 李娜, 唐迅, 李劲, 吴涛, 陈大方, 胡永华 . 北京某社区2型糖尿病患者血糖控制情况与肱踝脉搏波传导速度的相关性研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2015, 47(3): 431-436.
[14] 冯琦琛, 李选, 董国祥, 傅军, 王昌明. 急性高危肺栓塞介入取栓、溶栓中应用r-tPA与尿激酶溶栓时间及疗效比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2014, 46(3): 460-463.
[15] 刘严, 齐丽彤, 马为, 杨颖, 孟磊, 张宝娓, 霍勇. 中老年人体测量学指标与动脉硬化指标的关系[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2014, 46(3): 455-459.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!