Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass in a United States academic center.

BACKGROUND: Although aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) is preferentially treated endovascularly, some patients are still better served with an aortobifemoral bypass (ABF). For those patients, surgical treatment options include both standard open operations as well as laparoscopic ABF (LapABF). Several European centers perform LapABF with favorable results instead of open surgery, but this has not been widely embraced in the United States. We reviewed our ten-year experience with LapABF, evolving from a completely laparoscopic to a standardized laparoscopic-assisted approach.

METHODS: A retrospective review of all laparoscopic aortic operations performed at a single US academic institution from 2005 to 2015 was completed. Demographics, co-morbidities, intraoperative parameters and clinical outcomes were recorded. Patients were excluded from consideration for laparoscopic surgery if they had previous aortic surgery, aneurysmal disease or gastrointestinal pathology (e.g. diverticulitis or an enteric stoma).

RESULTS: Thirty men and sixteen women were treated, (n=46) with a mean age of 55.7 (range 38-75 years). All operations were performed by a single surgeon. LapABF was successfully completed in 95.6%. A completely laparoscopic approach was undertaken in eight patients and a laparoscopic-assisted approach was used in the remaining 38 patients. Mean follow-up was 46 months (range 1 to 131). The indication for operation was claudication (n=35, 76%), rest pain (n=8, 17%) or tissue loss (n=3, 7%). Twenty-one limbs had a history of a prior failed aortoiliac endovascular intervention (23%). Median length of stay was 6 days (range 2-30). Within 30 days there were two myocardial infarctions (4.3%), one transient ischemic attack (2.2%) and one death (2.2%). Re-intervention was performed in 12 patients over the course of the study period (26.1%). Primary, primary-assisted and secondary patency was 79.4%, 93.9% and 94.9% at 60 months, respectively. Overall mortality was 17% with a mean duration of follow-up of 60 months (range 1-116). Multivariable analysis revealed coronary artery disease (CAD; p=0.03) conferred a sixteenfold risk for death during long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: In this large US series of LapABF, we observed acceptable long-term patency, short length of stay and minimal morbidity. We suggest that this standardized approach for laparoscopicassisted ABF is a viable option for patients with AIOD not suitable for endovascular therapy. The use of laparoscopic-assisted ABF affords practitioners the benefits of a completely laparoscopic approach while reducing the duration and complexity of the operation. Given the rate of re-interventions in the early era practitioners should be aware of the Learning curve with this approach.