Page 343 - Read Online

Page 6 of 8 Nikolay et al. Vessel Plus 2018;2:35 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2018.45

Table 4. Characteristics of the perioperative period
Perioperative period OO EP HS P
Durations of the OO, min 206.17 ± 84.73 - 175.00 ± 92.95 0.19
Durations of the EP, min - 90.63 ± 53.36 77.50 ± 66.22 0.22
BP fluctuation during the operation, mmHg 40.62 ± 23.33 30.55 ± 14.15 35.83 ± 14.48 0.001
Blood loss, mL 790.93 ± 244.32 - 473.91 ± 177.01 0.001
ICU* staying, h 29.76 ± 18.79 15.63 ± 7.03 25.88 ± 9.73 0.001
Myocardial infarction, n (%) 2 (2.04%) 2 (1.72%) - 0.68
Stroke, n (%) 1 (1.02%) - - 0.45
Operated segment thrombosis, n (%) 8 (8.16%) 2 (1.72%) - 0.02
Bleeding, n (%) 4 (4.08%) 3 (2.59%) - 0.30
Surgical site infection, n (%) 10 (10.2%) 4 (3.45%) - 0.02
Primary patency, n (%) 83 (84.69%) 113 (88.79%) 39 (100%) 0.01
Re-intervention, n (%) 15 (15.31%) 13 (11.21%) - 0.04
Amputations, n (%) 8 (8.163%) 6 (5.17%) - 0.16

*ICU: intensive care unit; OO: open operative; EP: endovascular procedures; HS: hybrid surgery techniques; BP: blood pressure

Table 5. Features of the operating period depending on the degree of ischemia
Operation Degree of ischemia OO EP P
Operated segment thrombosis, n (%) Claudication 2 (3.6%) - 0.04
CLI 6 (11.6%) 2 (2.02%) 0.006
Bleeding, n (%) Claudication 1 (1.8%) - 0.156
CLI 3 (5.8%) 3 (3.03%) 0.307
Surgical site infection complication, n (%) Claudication 4 (8.7%) 1 (6.25%) 0.421
CLI 6 (14.0%) 3 (3.03%) 0.006
Re-intervention in 30 days, n (%) Claudication 3 (6.5%) 1 (6.25%) 0.775
CLI 11 (21.2%) 12(12.12%) 0.087
Amputations, n (%) Claudication 1 (1.8%) - 0.156
CLI 7 (13.5%) 6 (6.06%) 0.06
CLI: critical limb ischemia; OO: open operative; EP: endovascular procedures

The advantages of endovasal techniques include minimal invasiveness and, accordingly, good tolerability
of the operation, which is especially important for patients with combined lesions of the lower extremity
arteries and arteries of the coronary or carotid pool . Among the shortcomings of EP, there is the risk
[14]
of restenosis and thrombosis at the level of the operated segment, as well as limitations due to anatomical
features . According to the results of this study, endovascular techniques are characterized by a lower
[15]
primary patency compared to open and hybrid interventions within 30 days after the intervention.

The main disadvantages of open methods are: a significant probability of infectious complications, a longer
[13]
surgical time and a significant surgical risk . In this study, a significant frequency of so-called “large”
complications in the group of open operations was noted in the early period after the intervention.

Hybrid surgical interventions were characterized by positive outcomes at an early stage, combining the
advantages of open and endovascular techniques . As a result, hybrid operations are characterized by a
[16]
[17]
lower incidence of limb loss . According to the present study there were no amputations recorded in the
early period after hybrid interventions.

Advantages of hybrid techniques in comparison with open reconstructions are reduced duration of
[18]
hospitalization and blood loss . It is also interesting to note that the difference between hybrid and
endovascular reconstructions was in the smaller amount of contrast used and the lesser occurrence of
[19]
bleeding in the puncture zone . All this contributes to reducing the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy,
as well as other complications, reducing the cost of hybrid surgical interventions compared with open