Hand-assisted laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass versus open bypass for XXXX .

@entity1 @entity1538 @entity190 @entity8566 @entity432
BACKGROUND: Aortobifemoral bypass grafting is the treatment of choice for @entity1 with symptomatic @entity432 . Yet, traditional operative exposure through a midline laparotomy incision carries significant morbidity. The authors compare operative and @entity1 outcomes following @entity8566 ( @entity8566 ) bypass and @entity1538 ( @entity1538 ) bypass. METHODS: An initial series of @entity1 who underwent @entity8566 bypass grafting (n = 8) were compared with a simultaneous cohort of @entity1 treated with standard open bypass (n = 10). The two groups were similar with respect to age, weight, and sex. Operative parameters, clinical outcomes, and complications were compared. RESULTS: @entity8566 was successfully performed in all eight cases attempted. Operative times did not differ between the laparoscopic and open groups (234 +/- 42 minutes vs. 206 +/- 43 minutes, P =.99). Mean @entity190 values were comparable (562 mL [ @entity8566 ] vs. 756 mL [ @entity1538 ], P =.56). There were no conversions. Time to resumption of oral intake (1.8 vs. 4.7 days, P =.001) and length of stay (3.8 vs. 6.3 days, P =.0004) were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic than in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: @entity8566 is a safe and technically feasible procedure. When compared with the traditional open operation, this technique may result in shorter hospitalization, more rapid return of bowel function, and earlier return to activity.
