Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach for reconstruction of abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with previous laparotomy

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
International Journal of Angiology

Abstract

Although the standard surgical approach for repair of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has been the transperitoneal approach, several reports have suggested the usefulness of retroperitoneal aortic reconstruction. However, the superiority of the retroperitoneal compared with transperitoneal approach is still controversial. To compare the efficacy of the retroperitoneal with that of the transperitoneal approach in elective AAA resection, 19 consecutive cases with previous laparotomies were randomly reviewed. From January 1990 through December 1992, 94 consecutive patients underwent elective reconstructions of an infrarenal AAA. Among them, 75 patients had had no previous surgery of any kind. In all of them, the transperitoneal approach was used (Group I). Nineteen other patients who had various laparotomies were randomly divided into two groups. The transperitoneal approach was used in 10 patients (Group II), and the retroperitoneal approach was used in 9 patients (Group III). Thus, the patients were separated into three groups and the intra- and postoperative parameters were compared. Surgical data including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and aortic cross-clamping time did not differ significantly between the transperitoneal approach in the patients without laparotomy (Group I) and the retroperitoneal approach (Group II). In addition, the postoperative recovery including the initiation of alimentation and postoperative hospitalization also did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, there was a significant difference in the operative time and the blood loss between the retroperitoneal approach (Group II) and transperitoneal approach (Group III) in the patients with previous laparotomy. In addition, the postoperative parameters including the initiation of oral intake was sooner and hospitalization was significantly shorter in the retroperitoneal group (Group II) than in the transperitoneal group (Group III) with previous laparotomy. There was no incidence of postoperative adhesive ileus in the patients with the retroperitoneal approach (Group II). The results demonstrated no important advantage for the retroperitoneal approach compared with routine transperitoneal approach in the patients without previous laparotomy. However, in the patients with previous laparotomies, the retroperitoneal approach is a preferable alternative to the transperitoneal route.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Williams GM, Ricotta J, Zinner M, Burdick J (1980) The extended retroperitoneal approach for treatment of extensive atherosclerosis of the aorta and renal vessels. Surgery 88:846–855.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Shepard AD, Scott GR, Mackey WC, O'Donnell TF, Bush HL, Callow AD (1986) Retroperitoneal approach to high-risk abdominal aortic aneurysms. Arch Surg 121:444–449.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sicard GA, Freeman MB, Vander Wounde JC, Anderson CB (1987) Comparison between the transabdominal and retroperitoneal approach for reconstruction of the infrarenal abdominal aorta. J Vasc Surg 5:19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Leather RP, Shah DM, Kaufman JL, Fitzgerald KM, Chang BB, Feuster PJ (1989) Comparative analysis of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal aortic replacement for aneurysm. Surg Gynecol Obstet 168:387–393.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Helsby R, Moosa AR (1975) Aortoiliac reconstruction through a retroperitoneal approach. Br J Surg 62:596–600.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stipa S, Shaw RS (1968) Aortoiliac reconstruction through a retroperitoneal approach. J Cardiovasc Surg 9:224–236.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Metz P, Mathiesen FR (1978) Retroperitoneal approach for implantation of aortoiliac and aortofemoral vascular prosthesis. Acta Chir Scand 144:471–473.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shumacker HB (1972) Midline extraperitoneal approach exposure of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries. Surg Gynecol Obstet 135:791–792.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson JN, McLoughlin GA, Wake PN, Helsby CR (1986) Comparison of extraperitoneal and transperitoneal methods of aorto-iliac reconstruction. J Cardiovasc Surg 27:561–564.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cambria RP, Brewster DC, Abbott WM, et al (1990) Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach for aortic reconstruction: A randomized prospective study. J Vasc Surg 11:314–325.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hollier LH, Taylor LM, Ochsner J (1992) Recommended indications for operative treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: Report of a subcommittee of the Joint Council of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the North American Chapter of the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg 15:1046–1056.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ernst CB (1993) Current concepts: Abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 328:1167–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Komori K, Okadome K, Odashiro T, et al (1992) Simultaneous resection of abdominal aortic aneurysm and early gastric cancer by retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach. Eur J Vasc Surg 6:639–641.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Komori K, Okadome K, Funahashi S, Itoh H, Sugimachi K (1994) Surgical strategy of concomitant abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastric cancer. J Vasc Surg 19:573–576.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Komori, K., Okazaki, J., Kawasaki, K. et al. Comparison of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approach for reconstruction of abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with previous laparotomy. International Journal of Angiology 6, 230–233 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01616218

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01616218

Keywords

Navigation