Retroperitoneal access for XXXX : a single center experience.

@entity1 @entity1028 @entity260
BACKGROUND: @entity1028 ( @entity1028 ) may be treated through different surgical techniques. In this endovascular era, surgery remains a mainstay in the management of this disease, especially in @entity1 unsuitable for EVAR. The purpose of this study was to compare retrospectively the postoperative outcomes and survival rates of the transperitoneal and the retroperitoneal approach for the @entity1028 repair in our Unit. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 840 consecutive @entity1 affected by @entity1028 who were electively admitted in our unit from 1996 to 2011 was performed. Five hundred and sixty @entity1 underwent surgical treatment, 193 through a transperitoneal approach (TP group) and 367 by a retroperitoneal approach (RP group). Short and long-term postoperative outcomes were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: The RP group was characterized by significantly fewer ICU admissions and fewer respiratory and @entity260 . Canalization and oral feeding occurred earlier and the mean length of hospital stay for the RP group was shorter compared with that for the TP group. Twelve months survival rate in the RP group was significantly higher comparing with the TP group. Similarly higher survival rates were also observed at 180 months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In our study the repair of @entity1028 through a retroperitoneal approach was associated with positive outcomes particularly in high-risk @entity1 . It represents a valid therapeutic option especially in subjects not suitable for endovascular procedures. Surgical training and competence should be maintained to ensure the selection of the appropriate therapy for each @entity1 .
