[Minimal incision XXXX repair].

@entity1 @entity6227 @entity439 @entity1028
OBJECTIVE: The use of a limited incision for @entity1028 ( @entity1028 ) repair was evaluated, and its outcome was analyzed in comparison to standard open repair. @entity1 AND METHODS: Between February 2000 and August 2001, 20 @entity1 with an @entity1028 underwent minimal incision repair (MINI) for tube graft implantation. The minimal skin incision was made after localization of @entity439 and aortic bifurcation by CT and DSA. For repair of the upper part of the @entity1028 the abdominal incision was retracted toward the head of the @entity1 who was in a jackknife @entity6227 position. Conversely, when the peripheral portion of the @entity1028 was treated, the abdominal incision was retracted caudally with the @entity1 in a flat or slightly bent @entity6227 position. The operation itself was performed using the standard conventional technique. The length of the abdominal incision was 10 cm. Clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcome of this procedure were compared to a group of @entity1 who underwent repair of @entity1028 by means of a standard open technique (OPEN). RESULTS: @entity1 age in the MINI and OPEN groups were similar (69 +/- 11 vs. 69 +/- 9 years). However, there were significant differences between the MINI and OPEN groups in the time for starting oral intake of food (2,4 +/- 1,2 vs. 7,4 +/- 5,5 postoperative days, p = 0,003), time for starting to walk outside the room (2,2 +/- 0,7 vs. 4,6 +/- 2,2 postoperative days, p = 0,01) and operation times (197 +/- 37 vs. 294 +/- 83 min, p = 0,0004). CONCLUSION: Minimal incision repair is technically feasible and combines the benefits of a minimal incision with those of conventional open repair, reducing @entity1 recovery time.
