Objective: To make comparisons on similarities and differences of clinical effects of endovascular repair and traditional open surgery for patients with infectious abdominal aneurysm.
Methods: 20 cases with infectious abdominal aneurysm admitted in our hospital from January 2012 to January 2015 were selected, and patients were divided into two groups randomly. 10 cases received traditional open surgery, and 10 cases accepted endovascular repair surgery. After treatment, the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, complications after postoperative recovery and mortality of the two groups of patients were analyzed and compared.
Results: compared to the traditional open surgery, the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, wound length and length of stay for endovascular repair were lower. The data comparisons showed statistical significance (P<0.05) ; among the cases accepting endovascular repair, only two cases (20%) suffered from severe complications, while 5 cases (50%) in open surgery group, showing statistical significance (P<0.05) ; during follow-up visit, no death occurred in endovascular repair group, while two cases died in the traditional open surgery group.
Conclusions: The endovascular repair for infectious abdominal aneurysm is characterized by short operation time, less blood loss, small wound, rapid postoperative recovery, with exact clinical effect. Compared with the traditional open surgery, it can be used as a preferred treatment method in the clinical treatment.
Discussion: According to the surgical process, the endovascular repair is more strict; when performing the endovascular repair, it is necessary to determine appropriate type of stent, diameter of stent, and the flexibility of the stent. It is required to give full consideration to the influencing factors of operation and prognostic effect before and after surgical operations, to reduce the risks and enhance the life of quality of patients after surgery.Author(s): Li Dai, Yongquan Pan, Lei Li, Bing Liu, Jin Wang, Dongming Zhang