Comparison of minimal incision aortic surgery with endovascular aortic repair

• Published in: The American journal of surgery 2003-09, Vol.186 (3), p.287-291
• Main Authors: Turnipseed, William, Tefera, Girma, Carr, Sandra
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdomen; Advantages; Aged; Aneurysms; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery; Arterial Occlusive Diseases - surgery; Cardiovascular disease; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Female; Hospital costs; Hospitalization; Humans; Iliac Artery; Length of Stay - statistics & numerical data; Less invasive vascular surgery; Male; Medical imaging; Minilap surgery (vascular); Minimal incision aortic surgery; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Mortality; Patient satisfaction; Prospective Studies; Surgery; Surgical apparatus & instruments; Vascular Surgical Procedures - methods
• ISSN: 0002-9610; 1879-1883
• DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00223-X

Enthusiasm for endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has been tempered by midterm outcomes that raise valid concern about long-term durability. This article compares outcome data from a prospective nonrandomized comparison of a less-invasive open surgical repair technique—minimal incision aortic surgery (MIAS)—and EVAR. MIAS and EVAR had comparable intensive care unit stays (1 day or less), quick return to general dietary feeding (2 days), and comparable hospital length of stay (4.8 days [3.4 days for uncomplicated cases MIAS] and 2.0 days for EVAR). Overall morbidity and mortality for MIAS and EVAR were comparable (18% versus 27%). MIAS was more cost effective than EVAR (net revenue MIAS = +$8,445, EVAR −$7,263) MIAS is a safe, cost-effective alternative to endovascular aortic repair.