Title |
Comparison of the acute-phase response after laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass surgery: a substudy of a randomized controlled trial
|
---|---|
Published in |
Vascular Health and Risk Management, September 2016
|
DOI | 10.2147/vhrm.s110600 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Anne H Krog, Mehdi Sahba, Erik M Pettersen, Irene Sandven, Per M Thorsby, Jørgen J Jørgensen, Jon O Sundhagen, Syed SS Kazmi |
Abstract |
Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been shown to reduce the inflammatory response related to a surgical procedure. The main objective of our study was to measure the inflammatory response in patients undergoing a totally laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass surgery. This is the first randomized trial on subjects in this population. This is a substudy of a larger randomized controlled multicenter trial (Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial). Thirty consecutive patients with severe aortoiliac occlusive disease eligible for aortobifemoral bypass surgery were randomized to either a totally laparoscopic (n=14) or an open surgical procedure (n=16). The inflammatory response was measured by perioperative monitoring of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, and C-reactive protein (CRP) at six different time points. The inflammatory reaction caused by the laparoscopic procedure was reduced compared with open surgery. IL-6 was significantly lower after the laparoscopic procedure, measured by comparing area under the curve (AUC), and after adjusting for the confounding effect of coronary heart disease (P=0.010). The differences in serum levels of IL-8 and CRP did not reach statistical significance. In this substudy of a randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass surgeries, we found a decreased perioperative inflammatory response after the laparoscopic procedure measured by comparing AUC for serum IL-6. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 20% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 13% |
Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
Other | 2 | 7% |
Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
Other | 5 | 17% |
Unknown | 9 | 30% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 37% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 12 | 40% |