目的:比较开放手术(OS)的疗效,血管内干预(EI),超声引导下凝血酶注射(UGTI)治疗外周动脉假性动脉瘤(PAs)。
方法:从2001年1月1日至2021年2月10日,38例诊断为创伤性和医源性PA的患者接受OS治疗,EI,和UGTI进行回顾性分析。有18名女性和20名男性,年龄56.47±14.08岁(范围,17-87岁)。麻醉方式,操作持续时间,输血,住院时间,主要和次要成功率,和并发症发生率用于评估手术效果。
结果:OS组区域麻醉11例,全身麻醉4例。EI组区域麻醉9例,全身麻醉1例,UGTI组不需要区域或全身麻醉。两组间差异无统计学意义(χ2=39.80,p<0.05)。OS的输血量(单位)分别为3.6±6.0、0.8±2.5、0.0±0.0,EI,和UGTI团体,分别,OS组和UGTI组之间差异有统计学意义(F=3.03,p<0.05)。操作系统的操作持续时间(分钟),EI,和UGTI组分别为80.0±41.9、56.0±8.4和22.7±5.3,两组间差异有统计学意义(F=15.69,p<0.05)。住院时间(天)分别为47.7±39.0、31.5±17.6和16.3±9.5,两组间差异有统计学意义(F=47.73,p<0.05)。主要临床成功率为80%(12/15),90%(9/10),操作系统中的92.3%(12/13),EI,和UGTI团体,分别,两组间无显著性差异(χ2=0.34,p>0.05)。三组的次要临床成功率均为100%。OS的总体并发症发生率,EI,UGTI组为20%(3/15),10%(1/10),和7.7%(1/13),分别,两组间差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.00,p>0.05)。感染率为13.3%(2/15),10%(1/10),和0%(0/13)在操作系统中,EI,和UGTI组分别,两组间差异无统计学意义(χ2=1.80,p>0.05)。再干预率为6.7%(1/15),0%(0/10),7.7%(1/13)的操作系统,EI,和UGTI团体,分别,两组间差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.95,p>0.05)。所有患者的神经痛均得到缓解。
结论:操作系统,EI,UGTI和UGTI是治疗适当的创伤性和医源性PAs患者的有效和安全的选择。UGTI将被认为是这种疾病的一线疗法。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of open surgery (OS), endovascular interventions (EIs), and ultrasound-guided thrombin injection (UGTI) for the treatment of peripheral arterial pseudoaneurysms (PAs).
METHODS: From January 1, 2001, to February 10, 2021, 38 patients diagnosed with traumatic and iatrogenic PAs treated with OS, EI, and UGTI were retrospectively analyzed. There were 18 females and 20 males, with an age of 56.47 ± 14.08 years (range,17-87 years). Anesthesia modality, operation duration, blood transfusion, duration of hospital stay, primary and secondary success rates, and complication rate were used to evaluate the surgical outcomes.
RESULTS: There were 11 cases under regional anesthesia and 4 under general anesthesia in OS group, 9 under regional anesthesia and 1 under general anesthesia in EI group, and no regional or general anesthesia was required in UGTI group. There was no significant differences between any two groups (χ2 = 39.80, p < 0.05). The blood tranfusion amount (units) were 3.6 ± 6.0, 0.8 ± 2.5, 0.0 ± 0.0 for OS, EI, and UGTI groups, respectively, with significant difference between OS and UGTI groups (F = 3.03, p < 0.05). The operation duration (minutes) of OS, EI, and UGTI groups were 80.0 ± 41.9, 56.0 ± 8.4, and 22.7 ± 5.3, respectively, with significant difference between any two groups (F = 15.69, p < 0.05). The duration of hospital stay (days) were 47.7 ± 39.0, 31.5 ± 17.6, and 16.3 ± 9.5, repectively, with significant difference between any two groups (F = 47.73, p < 0.05). The primary clinical success rates were 80% (12/15), 90% (9/10), and 92.3% (12/13) in OS,EI, and UGTI groups, respectively, with no significant difference between any two groups (χ2 = 0.34, p > 0.05). The secondary clinical success rates were 100% for all three groups. The overall complication rates of OS, EI, and UGTI groups were 20% (3/15), 10% (1/10), and 7.7% (1/13), respectively, with no significant difference between any two groups (χ2 = 1.00, p > 0.05). The infection rates were 13.3% (2/15), 10% (1/10), and 0% (0/13) in OS, EI, and UGTI groups respectively, with no significant difference between any two groups (χ2 = 1.80, p > 0.05). The reintervention rates were 6.7% (1/15), 0% (0/10), 7.7% (1/13) in OS, EI, and UGTI groups, respectively, with no significant difference between two groups (χ2 = 0.95, p > 0.05). Neuralgia was relieved in all patients.
CONCLUSIONS: OS, EI, and UGTI are efficacious and safe options for the treatment of appropriate patients with traumatic and iatrogenic PAs. UGTI would be considered as a first-line therapy for this condotion.