Femoral Artery Closure Versus Surgical Cutdown for Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND: To compare the outcome and complication rates of femoral artery closure and surgical cutdown for endovascular aortic repair procedures (EVAR). MATERIAL/METHODS: Patients underwent either percutaneous femoral artery closure (PA group) or surgical cutdown (SC group) for EVAR between July 2011 and June 2016 and EVAR procedures were used for all cases. Data on outcomes and complications were collected and compared. RESULTS: The SC group contained 55 patients and the PA group contained 60 patients and the technical success rates were 100.0% and 98.0%, respectively. The mean operation time, time to ambulation, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the PA group (P<0.01). The estimated intraoperative blood loss and wound pain scores were significantly higher in the SC group (P<0.01). However, the PA procedure was more expensive (P<0.01). The overall incidence rate of complications was higher in the SC group (P=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: The PA technique had a high success rate, shorter operation time and hospital stay, and fewer wound complications compared to SC. Thus, PA might be the preferred choice for selected EVAR procedures.