Objective:To evaluate the use of endovascular aortic repair(EVAR) and open aortic surgery(IAS) for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm.
Methods :A retrospective review of patients treated with EVAR or IAS between 2002 and 2007 was performed. The occurrence rate of perioperative complications, morbidity and mortality, survival rate, quality of life, and cost of treatment were compared.
Results:Forty-two patients(30INS,12EVAR) were treated. Operating time,the intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative blood transfusion were less in EVAR group than in the IAS group (P<0.01), the occurrence rate of perioperative complicatines, the rate of survival after 2 years, and cost of treatment in ENAR group were higher than that of IAS group.
Conclusions:EVAR has the advantages of less invasion and short operating time, but with more complications on long-term follow up. The quality of life at 6 months after open operation is better than that of EVAR.