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.

A Short Series of Laparoscopic Mesenteric Bypasses for Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia.

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.

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.

Patient-perceived health-related quality of life before and after laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass.

BACKGROUND: In 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 METHODS: Fifty 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. RESULTS: Statistically 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. CONCLUSION: Patients 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.

Perioperative humoral stress response to laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass surgery.

Minimally invasive surgery seems to reduce hormonal stress response to surgery, but has not previously been examined in major abdominal vascular surgery. Aortic cross-clamping time and operation time is known to be longer in the totally laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass (LABF) as compared to open aortobifemoral bypass (OABF). The main objective of our study was to measure the hormonal stress response during surgery and aortic cross-clamping in patients undergoing a totally laparoscopic versus an open aortobifemoral bypass. This was a sub-study of a larger randomized controlled multicentre trial. Thirty consecutive patients with severe aortoiliac occlusive disease were randomized to either a laparoscopic (LABF) or an open (OABF) procedure. The surgical stress response was measured by perioperative monitoring of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), aldosterone, metanephrine and cortisol at eight different time-points. During surgery. there was an increase in all humoral stress markers in both groups. The analysis of covariance showed increased levels of cortisol and ACTH in open group at 24 h time-point as compared to the baseline and this difference was statistically significant between the two groups, which indicate an earlier return to baseline levels in the laparoscopic group. Results from the General Estimated Equations (GEE) model indicate that LABF generates a lower level of metanephrine and higher level of aldosterone as compared to OABF. In conclusion, although they have higher levels of ACTH, aldosterone and cortisol during surgery, the patients operated with a laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass achieve earlier hormonal homeostasis after surgery compared to open aortobifemoral bypass.

Comparison of the acute-phase response after laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass surgery: a substudy of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Minimally 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 METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: In 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.