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

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2016.05.019

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的：比较经皮穿刺与传统股动脉切开行主动脉瘤腔内修复术（endovascular aneurysm repair, EVAR）的临床资料，评估预置缝合线技术（preclose technique）的安全性与可行性。方法: 回顾性分析2011年12月至2014年11月于北京大学人民医院行EVAR手术的81例主动脉瘤患者的临床资料。患者术前CT显示存在肾下腹主动脉瘤或降主动脉真性动脉瘤，瘤体最大直径>4.5 cm，达到手术治疗指征，且双侧股动脉、髂动脉条件良好，管腔无中重度狭窄，股动脉前壁无严重钙化，既可行经皮穿刺主动脉瘤腔内修复术（percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair, PEVAR），也可行传统切开主动脉瘤腔内修复术（open endovascular aneurysm repair, OEVAR），根据患者对手术切口意向分为PEVAR组与OEVAR组。收集患者的一般情况、手术时间、术中出血量、技术成功率、术后住院时间、切口并发症等数据，所得结果进行统计学分析。结果: PEVAR组共44例患者78处股动脉切口，OEVAR组共37例患者65处股动脉切口。两组患者在年龄、性别、体重指数（body mass index，BMI）、伴随疾病、平均植入支架数量、支架输送系统外径等方面差异无统计学意义。PEVAR组手术时间明显少于OEVAR组［（119.1±102.0） min vs. （163.6±61.9） min，P=0.025］，术中出血量少于OEVAR组［（64.7±97.0） mL vs. （98.6±88.3） mL］，但两组差异无统计学意义（P=0.106）；两组技术成功率（94.9% vs. 95.4%，P=1.000）差异无统计学意义；PEVAR组术后平均住院时间比OEVAR组明显缩短［（7.8±2.8） d vs.（12.3±7.2） d，P<0.001］；PEVAR组术后2处切口出现皮下血肿，OEVAR组术后出现7处切口并发症，其中3处淋巴漏，3处入路动脉狭窄导致的下肢缺血，1处皮下血肿，OEVAR组切口并发症发生率较PEVAR组多（2.6% vs.10.8%），但两组间差异无统计学意义（P=0.079）。结论: 采用预置缝合线技术经皮穿刺途径完成EVAR安全有效，与传统股动脉切开相比，其可以缩短手术时间和术后住院时间。

关键词: 股动脉, 主动脉瘤, 血管成形术, 穿刺术

Abstract:

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.

Key words: Femoral Artery, Aortic aneurysm, Angioplasty, Punctures

中图分类号:

R543.1

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.

JIANG Jing-jun,QING Hong-kun, ZHANG Xiao-ming, ZHANG Xue-min, LI Wei, SHEN Chen-yang, LI Qing-le, JIAO Yang. Control study of total percutaneous access with preclose technique versus open femoral artery exposure for endovascular aneurysm repair[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(5): 850-854.

参考文献

相关文章 15

[1]	李芷晴,俞冰,蔡泽宇,王迎宝,张煦,周彪,方晓红,于芳,付毅,孙金鹏,李伟,孔炜. 柚皮素抑制马凡综合征小鼠胸主动脉瘤的形成[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(5): 896-906.
[2]	李伟浩,李伟,张学民,李清乐,焦洋,张韬,蒋京军,张小明. 去分支杂交手术和传统手术治疗胸腹主动脉瘤的结果比较[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(1): 177-181.
[3]	贾子昌,李选,郑梅,栾景源,王昌明,韩金涛. 复合手术治疗无残端的症状性长段颈内动脉慢性闭塞[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(1): 177-180.
[4]	韩金涛，李选，和清源，赵海燕，叶珊，董国祥，栾景源，王昌明. 脑动脉串联病变的同期腔内治疗[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(1): 149-153.
[5]	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.
[6]	庄金满，李选，李天润，董国祥，赵军，栾景源. 股腘动脉TASCⅡ C/D型病变腔内重建与旁路手术的疗效对比[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2015, 47(6): 957-961.
[7]	栾景源，李选，傅军，王昌明，李天润，庄金满，冯琦琛，韩金涛，董国祥. 腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后Ⅱ型内漏的临床分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2015, 47(6): 966-970.
[8]	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.
[9]	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.
[10]	栾景源, 李选, 向勇, 傅军, 王昌明, 李天润, 韩金涛. 腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术中封闭髂内动脉后的并发症[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 46(6): 917-919.
[11]	韩金涛, 李选, 郑梅, 傅军, 王昌明, 董国祥, 和清源. 大脑中动脉成形术治疗中、重度残疾的皮质下分水岭梗死的临床观察[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 46(4): 606-611.
[12]	马凯, 黄晓波, 熊六林, 许清泉, 徐涛, 叶海云, 于路平, 王晓峰. 新型超声导航系统引导经皮肾穿刺行经皮肾镜取石术16例[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 46(4): 563-565.
[13]	左尚维, 隗瑛琦, 陈峰, 陈大方, 吴涛, 刘括, 孙可欣, 隽娟, 熊江, 郭伟. 腹主动脉瘤危险因素的病例对照研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 46(3): 412-416.
[14]	孙建萍, 张京岚. 经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术后高危患者围术期抗凝治疗与急性冠状动脉综合征发生的回顾分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2012, 44(5): 780-782.
[15]	栾景源, 李选, 冯琦琛, 王昌明, 傅军, 庄金满. 开窗覆膜支架腔内修复髂动脉瘤[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2012, 44(3): 489-491.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed