Evidence Hub

Laparoscopic vascular surgery: a systematic review

Nio D, Diks J, Bemelman WA, Wisselink W, Legemate DA

European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery, 2007

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the results of clinical studies on laparoscopic surgery for aorto-iliac disease.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from 1966 to September 2006 on laparoscopic and robotic vascular surgery was performed. Only patient series containing more than 5 cases were included. Operative, clamping and anastomosis times, conversion, mortality and morbidity and hospital stay were evaluated.

RESULTS: Thirty studies were identified. These were all descriptive and included 9 comparative studies. Operative times varied widely, the shortest being for hand-assisted procedures (2.5-4 hours) and the longest for totally laparoscopic procedures (4-6.5 hours). Clamping times were all<1 hour in hand-assisted procedures while in other techniques clamping times from 1-2.5 hours were seen. The conversion rate varied from <5% up to 16% in smaller series. The mortality rate was approximately 5% and frequently caused by cardiac ischemia. A variety of problems ranging from minor local wound problems to cardiopulmonary- and renal insufficiency, bleeding, ureter lesions and graft thrombosis were described. Mean hospital stay for nearly all procedures was <1 week.

CONCLUSIONS: Experience of laparoscopic surgery for aorto-iliac disease is still limited. Most study results are biased by patient selection. Only a few surgeons have mastered the required surgical technique and more data are needed to asses the clinical potential of this…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free