Quality of Life (QoL) Assessment in the Patients Operated with Either Laparoscopic or an Open Aortobifemoral Bypass for Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease (AIOD): 2 Years Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: QoL assessment within surgical treatment is seldom investigated and sparsely reported in the medical literature. This study aimed to compare QoL in a randomized fashion in the patients treated with either a laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABFB) or an open aortobifemoral bypass (OABFB) for the treatment of AIOD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-one consecutive patients with AIOD, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II Type D lesions (TASC II, Type D) were randomized to LABFB or OABFB. Thirty-five patients in the LABFB and thirty-six in the OABFB groups were compared for the changes in the QoL, with the short-form health survey (SF-36), EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), and EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS) preoperatively, and postoperatively at 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Mann-Whitney U-Test and Wilcoxon sign-rank test were used for group comparison. Mixed model analysis was performed to examine the effect of different variables on the QoL. RESULTS: In the patients treated with LABFB, physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS) in SF-36 were significantly higher than OABFB, at 1 and 3 months postoperatively. PCS was also significantly higher in the LABFB group than OABFB at 24 months postoperatively. The preoperative QoL scores for both the laparoscopy and the open group were significantly lower than the age-matched general Norwegian population. EQ-5D median scores were significantly higher in the LABFB at all postoperative follow-up time points up to 12 months. The patients in the LABFB group also had a statistically significant increase in EQ-5D VAS compared to OABFB, at 1 and 12 months postoperatively (p = 0.005, and p = 0.037, respectively). CONCLUSION: QoL seems better in patients treated with LABFB than OABFB, particularly during the early months after surgery.

Cost-utility analysis comparing laparoscopic vs open aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic 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 METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: We 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). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass seems to be cost-effective compared with open surgery, due to an increase in QALYs and lower procedure-related costs.

A comparative cohort study of totally laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass for the treatment of advanced atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Totally laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABF) procedure has been shown to be feasible for the treatment of advanced aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). This study compares the LABF with the open aortobifemoral bypass (OABF) operation. METHODS: In this prospective comparative cohort study, 50 consecutive patients with type D atherosclerotic lesions in the aortoiliac segment were treated with an LABF operation. The group was compared with 30 patients who were operated on with the OABF procedure for the same disease and time period. We had an explanatory strategy, and our research hypothesis was to compare the two surgical procedures based on a composite event (all-cause mortality, graft occlusion, and systemic morbidity). Stratification analysis was performed by using the Mantel-Haenszel method with the patient-time model. Cox multivariate regression method was used to adjust for confounding effect after considering the proportional hazard assumption. Cox proportional cause-specific hazard regression model was used for competing risk endpoint. RESULTS: There was a higher frequency of comorbidity in the OABF group. A significant reduction of composite event, 82% (hazard ratio 0.18; 95% CI 0.08-0.42, P=0.0001) was found in the LABF group when compared with OABF group, during a median follow-up time period of 4.12 years (range from 1 day to 9.32 years). In addition, less operative bleeding and shorter length of hospital stay were observed in the LABF group when compared with the OABF group. All components of the composite event showed the same positive effect in favor of LABF procedure. CONCLUSION: LABF for the treatment of AIOD, Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II type D lesions, seems to result in a less composite event when compared with the OABF procedure. To conclude, our results need to be replicated by a randomized clinical trial.