Abstract
The retroperitoneal approach to the infrarenal aorta was purported to have a shorter recovery and reduced degree of surgical stress than the transperitoneal approach. Hence, this study aimed to determine any advantages of one approach over the other. One hundred patients undergoing infrarenal aortic surgery between 1989 and 1992 were randomized to the transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach; 64 operations were for aneurysms (32 transperitoneal. 32 retroperitoneal) and 36 for occlusive disease (18 transperitoneal, 18 retroperitoneal). Parameters monitored were operating time, cross-clamp time, blood loss, fluid requirement in first 24 h, analgesia requirements, gastrointestinal function, morbidity, mortality and length of stay in intensive care and hospital. A minimum 3-year follow-up was obtained to assess mortality and wound problems. Inter-group demographic data were comparable. There was no significant difference between the two approaches for: operating time 190 versus 202 min, P = 0.26); cross-clamp time (72 versus 81 min, P = 0.93); blood loss (1095 versus 1072 ml, P = 0.56); 24-hour fluid requirements (6900 versus 7000 ml, P = 0.45); analgesia requirements (60 versus 55mg, P = 0.37), gastrointestinal function, morbidity (P = 0.75), mortality, and length of stay in intensive care (2 versus 2 days. P = 0.80) and hospital (10.5 versus 10 days, P = 0.76). In the long term there were significantly more wound problems (bulging, hernias and wound pain) in the retroperitoneal group. Long-term mortality was similar in both groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.