Minimal incision abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Purpose: The use of a limited incision for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair was evaluated, and its outcome was analyzed in comparison to laparoscopic-assisted and standard open repair. Methods: Eleven patients who had an AAA that required a tube graft underwent minimal incision (MINI) repair. The procedure consisted of a standard endoaneurysmorrhaphy performed through an 8- to 10-cm minilaparotomy. Clinical characteristics, in-hospital outcomes, and total in-hospital charges for this procedure were then compared with those of comparative groups of patients who had undergone repair of AAA by means of a laparoscopic-assisted (LAP) approach or a standard open (OPEN) technique. Results: MINI repair was successfully completed in all 11 patients. Patients in the three groups were comparable for age, sex, risk factors, and aortic dimensions. The mean values for operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, and total hospital charges for the three comparison groups were: 129.7 minutes (MINI) vs. 244.8 minutes (LAP)*, 209.9 minutes (OPEN)*; 522.7 mL (MINI) vs. 1214.7 mL (LAP), 1795.8 mL (OPEN)*; 5.18 days (MINI) vs. 18.7 days (LAP), 17.4 days (OPEN); $22,692 (MINI) vs. $59,922 (LAP)*, $62,324 (OPEN)* (*P < .05). Local complications occurred in 18.2% of patients who underwent MINI repair, 23.5% of patients who underwent LAP repair, and 29.7% of patients who underwent OPEN repair (P = not significant). Patients undergoing minilaparotomy demonstrated decreased compromise of gastrointestinal function, with a decreased need for postoperative fluid resuscitation (6799.7 mL [MINI], 7781.8 mL [LAP] vs. 11061.1 mL [OPEN]*) and shortened nasogastric tube decompression (1.6 days [MINI], 1.5 days [LAP] vs. 4.1 days [OPEN]*; *P < .05). Conclusion: MINI repair is a technically feasible technique that combines the benefits of minimally invasive surgery with those of conventional open repair with few, if any disadvantages. Facility of the procedure, combined with the potential cost benefits, encourages further study for consideration of this technique as a viable alternative for the management of AAAs. (J Vasc Surg 1999;30:977-84.)