Objective To compare the effectiveness between conventional open repair (OR) and endovascular repair (EVRAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Methods Between March 2000 and July 2011, 48 cases of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were treated by conventional OR in 40 cases (OR group) or by EVRAR in 8 cases (EVRAR group). There was no significant difference in age, sex, the neck length (less than 2 cm), the neck angulation of aneurysm (more than
60°), il iac severe tortuosity, preoperative systol ic pressure, and preoperative comorbidity between 2 groups (P  gt; 0.05). The blood transfusion volume, operation time, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative complications, reinterventions, and mortality were analyzed. Results There was no significant difference in 24-hour and 30-day mortality rates and non graft-related complications between 2 groups (P  gt; 0.05). EVRAR group was significantly better than OR group in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay (P  lt; 0.05), but OR group was significantly better than EVRAR group in reinterventions and graftrelated complications (P  lt; 0.05). Conclusion EVRAR has obvious advantages in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay, so it is feasible for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with precise anatomical suitability.

Citation： FAN Kun,REN Wei.. COMPARISON OF ENDOVASCULAR REPAIR AND OPEN REPAIR FOR RUPTURED ABDOMINAL AORTIC ANEURYSM. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2012, 26(7): 827-831. doi: Copy