Nurkay KATRANCIOĞLU, Hakan KUTLU, Ünal AYDIN, Halil BAŞEL, Müge TAŞDEMİR, Sadiye Deniz ÖZSOY, Ayşenur DOSTBİL, Andussamed HAZAR

Aortoiliyak tıkayıcı arter hastalıklarının cerrahi tedavisinde retroperitoneal ve transperitoneal yaklaşımların karşılaştırılması

Amaç: Bu çalışmada aortoiliyak tıkayıcı arter hastalıklarının (AİTAH) cerrahi tedavisinde transperitoneal (TP) ve retroperitoneal (RP) yaklaşımlar karşılaştırıldı, avantaj ve dezavantajları değerlendirildi.Çalışma planı: Ekim 2003-Ağustos 2007 tarihleri arasında AİTAH için cerrahi tedavi uygulanan 55 hasta geriye yönelik olarak değerlendirildi. Çalışmaya alınan hastaların 30�u RP, 25�i TP yöntemiyle ameliyat edildi. Klinik özellikler, risk faktörleri, ameliyat sırası ve sonrası bulgular iki grup arasında analiz edildi ve karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular: Klinik özellikler ve risk faktörleri açısından iki grup arasında anlamlı bir fark saptanmadı. Sekiz cerrahi parametreden beşi RP yaklaşım lehine sonuç verdi. Yoğun bakım ünitesinde kalış süresi (p

Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal procedures in aortoiliac occlusive diseases

Background: In this study, transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) procedures in the surgical treatment of aortoiliac occlusive diseases (AIOD) were compared advantages and disadvantages of these procedures were evaluated.Methods: Fifty-five patients who underwent surgery for AIOD between October 2003 and August 2007 were retrospectively evaluated. Retroperitoneal technique was performed in 30 patients and TP technique was performed in 25 patients. Clinical features, risk factors, peri- and postoperative medical data were analyzed and compared between two groups.Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical features and risk factors. Of the eight operative parameters, five were in favor of RP procedure. Duration of intensive care unit stay (p

PDF

___

1) Tosenovsky P, Janousek L, Lipar K, Moravec M. Left retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for abdominal aortic surgery - retrospective comparison of intraoperative and postoperative data. Bratisl Lek Listy 2003;104:352-5.
2) Arko FR, Bohannon WT, Mettauer M, Lee SD, Patterson DE, Manning LG, et al. Retroperitoneal approach for aortic surgery: is it worth it? Cardiovasc Surg 2001;9:20-6.
3) Muehling BM, Meierhenrich R, Thiere M, Bischoff G, Oberhuber A, Orend KH, et al. The retroperitoneal approach combined with epidural anesthesia reduces morbidity in elective infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2009;8:35-9.
4) Haga M, Inaba M, Yamamto H, Akasaka N, Uchida H, Kawai S, et al. Comparision of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach for infrarenal aortic aneurysm repair. Jpn J. Cardiovasc Surg 2000;29:305-8.
5) Kirby LB, Rosenthal D, Atkins CP, Brown GA, Matsuura JH, Clark MD, et al. Comparison between the transabdominal and retroperitoneal approaches for aortic reconstruction in patients at high risk. J Vasc Surg 1999;30:400-5.
6) Quiñones-Baldrich WJ, Garner C, Caswell D, Ahn SS, Gelabert HA, Machleder HI, et al. Endovascular, transperitoneal, and retroperitoneal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: results and costs. J Vasc Surg 1999;30:59-67.
7) Carrel T, Niederhäuser U, Laske A, Bauer E, Schönbeck M, von Segesser LK, et al. Retroperitoneal approach in selective surgery of the infrarenal aorta. Helv Chir Acta 1992;58:583-8. [Abstract]
8) Komori K, Okazaki J, Kawasaki K, Kuma S, Eguchi D, Mawatari K, et al. Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach for reconstruction of abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with previous laparotomy. International Journal of Angiology 2005;6:230-3.
9) Sicard GA, Reilly JM, Rubin BG, Thompson RW, Allen BT, Flye MW, et al. Transabdominal versus retroperitoneal incision for abdominal aortic surgery: report of a prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 1995;21:174-81.
10) Yamak B, Mavitaş B, Bardakçı H, Biriciklioğlu L, Ulus T, İşçan Z, et al. İnfrarenal aortik lezyonların cerrahisinde retroperitoneal yaklaşım: 9 vakanın erken sonuçları: Damar Cerrahisi Derg 1998;1:1-5.
11) Sieunarine K, Lawrence-Brown MM, Goodman MA. Comparison of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches for infrarenal aortic surgery: early and late results. Cardiovasc Surg 1997;5:71-6.
12) Cambria RP, Brewster DC, Abbott WM, Freehan M, Megerman J, LaMuraglia G, et al. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for aortic reconstruction: a randomized prospective study. J Vasc Surg 1990;11:314-24.
13) Çınar B, Göksel O, Aydoğan H, Filizcan U, Çetemen Ş. Abdominal aort anevrizmalarında cerrahi: Retroperitoneal ve transperitoneal yaklaşım. Türk Gögüs Kalp Kamar Cer Derg 2006;14:48-53.
14) Wachenfeld-Wahl C, Engelhardt M, Gengenbach B, Bruijnen HK, Loeprecht H, Woelfle KD. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms: is one superior? Vasa 2004;33:72-6.
15) Darling C 3rd, Shah DM, Chang BB, Paty PS, Leather RP. The current status of the use of retroperitoneal approach for reconstructions of the aorta and its branches. Ann Surg 1996; 224:501-6.
16) Hioki M, Iedokoro Y, Kawamura J, Yamashita Y, Yoshino N, Orii K, et al. Left retroperitoneal approach using a retractor to repair abdominal aortic aneurysms: a comparison with the transperitoneal approach. Surg Today 2002; 32:577-80.
17) Buckley CJ, Lee SD, Arko FR, Bohannon WT, Mettauer M, Patterson DE, et al. Economic considerations for aortic surgery: retroperitoneal approach-is it worth it? Acta Chir Belg 2000;100:247-50.