PurposeMinimally invasive surgical techniques have been shown to reduce the inflammatory response related to a surgical procedure. The main objective of our study was to measure the inflammatory response in patients undergoing a totally laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass surgery. This is the first randomized trial on subjects in this population.Patients and methodsThis is a substudy of a larger randomized controlled multicenter trial (Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial). Thirty consecutive patients with severe aortoiliac occlusive disease eligible for aortobifemoral bypass surgery were randomized to either a totally laparoscopic (n=14) or an open surgical procedure (n=16). The inflammatory response was measured by perioperative monitoring of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, and C-reactive protein (CRP) at six different time points.ResultsThe inflammatory reaction caused by the laparoscopic procedure was reduced compared with open surgery. IL-6 was significantly lower after the laparoscopic procedure, measured by comparing area under the curve (AUC), and after adjusting for the confounding effect of coronary heart disease (P=0.010). The differences in serum levels of IL-8 and CRP did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionIn this substudy of a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass surgeries, we found a decreased perioperative inflammatory response after the laparoscopic procedure measured by comparing AUC for serum IL-6.

Background

ObjectivesLaparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass has become an established treatment option for symptomatic aortoiliac obstructive disease at dedicated centers. Minimally invasive surgical techniques like laparoscopic surgery have often been shown to reduce expenses and increase patients’ health-related quality of life. The main objective of our study was to measure quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs after totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass.Patients and methodsThis was a within trial analysis in a larger ongoing randomized controlled prospective multicenter trial, Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial. Fifty consecutive patients suffering from symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease suitable for aortobifemoral bypass surgery were randomized to either totally laparoscopic (n=25) or open surgical procedure (n=25). One patient dropped out of the study before surgery. We measured health-related quality of life using the EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire at 4 different time points, before surgery and for 6 months during follow-up. We calculated the QALYs gained by using the area under the curve for both groups. Costs were calculated based on prices for surgical equipment, vascular prosthesis and hospital stay.ResultsWe found a significantly higher increase in QALYs after laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery, with a difference of 0.07 QALYs, (p=0.001) in favor of laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass. The total cost of surgery, equipment and hospital stay after laparoscopic surgery (9,953 €) was less than open surgery (17,260 €), (p=0.001).ConclusionLaparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass seems to be cost-effective compared with open surgery, due to an increase in QALYs and lower procedure-related costs.

BackgroundIn patients operated with laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABFB) for atherosclerotic obstruction in aortoiliac segment, the main focus of the reports published during the last two decades has been morbidity and mortality. The primary objective of this study was to examine the health-related quality of life (HRQL) in these patients before and after LABFB.Patients and methodsFifty consecutive patients (27 females) with Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II, type D lesions were prospectively included. Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire was used to get information about the HRQL before LABFB and at 1, 3 and 6 months after the operation. Main indication for LABFB was intermittent claudication. Linear mixed-effect models were used to assess changes in HRQL over time. Age, gender, smoking, blood loss, operation time, concomitant operation, the American Society of Anesthesiologists category, length of hospital stay, previous vascular procedures and aorta cross-clamping were used as fixed factors and their impact on the physical components of the SF-36, as well as the summary scores were determined with univariate analysis. Variables with P<0.2 were included in the multivariate regression analysis. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsStatistically significant improvement was found in all SF-36 domains as well as in the summary scores after LABFB compared to the preoperative scores. The improvement in scores was substantial already at 1 month and the effect was maintained at 3 and 6 months survey time points. Concomitant operations had a statistically significant negative impact on the physical components of SF-36. Data completeness of item questionnaires was 93% in the whole material. Reliability scale and homogeneity estimates for the eight domains had high internal consistency.ConclusionPatients operated with LABFB for Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II, type D lesions have reduced HRQL. LABFB leads to substantial and statistically significant improvement in the patients’ HRQL, when examined with SF-36. These results need to be replicated by a randomized clinical trial.

Background: Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABFB) surgery has become an established treatment procedure for aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD), TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II (TASC II), type D lesions. However, studies with an economic evaluation of this procedure are sparse. The main purpose of our study was to compare the costs of LABFB and open aortobifemoral bypass (OABFB) surgery. Patients and methods: This is a substudy of a larger randomized controlled prospective multicenter trial, Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial (NLAST). Perioperative data were collected on 70 patients undergoing surgery for AIOD, TASC type D lesions. Thirty-four patients were randomized to LABFB and 36 patients to OABFB. Treatment costs were calculated for the two operative treatments until 30 postoperative days. In addition to fixed and variable costs, direct and indirect costs were also included. Results: The mean total cost of LABFB was 19,798 € and for OABFB 34,016 € until 30 postoperative days. Laparoscopic procedure was 14,218 € less costly than the open procedure. The main factor leading to less cost of LABFB was shorter length of hospital stay (mean 5.3 days, 95% CI 4.1-6.5) as compared to OABFB (mean 10.1 days, 95% CI 7.5-12.6). Ten patients, three in the LABFB and seven in the OABFB group, had complications that resulted in reoperations within the 30 postoperative days. The mean cost of treatment for the complicated patients was 49,349 € and 82,985 €, respectively, for LABFB and OABFB. Conclusion: Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass procedure costs less than open aortobifemoral bypass for the treatment of advanced aortoiliac occlusive disease.

No abstract

Background: Laparoscopic aortomesenteric bypass may be performed to treat the chronic mesenteric ischemia patients who are not suitable for endovascular treatment. This study presents an initial experience with a limited series of laparoscopic mesenteric artery revascularization for the treatment of mesenteric ischemia. Methods: Chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) patients with previous unsuccessful endovascular treatment or with arterial occlusion and extensive calcification precluding safe endovascular treatment were offered laparoscopic mesenteric revascularization. From October 2015 until November 2018, nine patients with CMI underwent laparoscopic revascularization. In addition to demographic data and perioperative results of the treatment, graft patency was assessed with Duplex ultrasound at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, and annually thereafter. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. Results: All bypasses were constructed with an 8 mm ring enforced expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft in a retrograde fashion (from infrarenal aorta or iliac artery) to either superior mesenteric artery or splenic artery (2 cases). Median operation time was 356 mins (range 247-492 mins). Five patients had a history of unsuccessful endovascular treatment. Laparoscopic technical success was 78%, and the primary open conversion rate was 22%. All laparoscopic revascularization procedures remained patent after discharge during a median follow-up time of 26 months (range 18-49 months). The primary graft patency at 30 days was 78%. Primary assisted, and secondary graft patency was 78% and 100%, respectively. Median weight gain was 2 kg (range 2-18 kg), and all patients achieved relief from postprandial pain and nausea. No mortality was observed during the follow-up period. Conclusion: Laparoscopic aortomesenteric revascularization procedures for chronic mesenteric ischemia are feasible but require careful patient selection. These procedures should only be performed at referral centers by vascular surgeons with prior experience in laparoscopic vascular surgery.

No abstract