{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03719599427753934, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02145922746781116, 'mean_word_length': 4.757201646090535, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[The study of different operative style for abdominal aortic aneurysm during surrounding operation].

OBJECTIVE
To compare the the similarities and differences during the surrounding operation of endovascular repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm.


METHODS
112 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) were selected from 2004 to 2009: among them, 66 patients were treated with EVAR, 46 patients with OSR. Data of two groups were collected and analyzed during surrounding operation.


RESULTS
Compared to OSR group, the mean blood lost, blood transfusion and intra-operative fluid in EVAR group were significantly less than OSR group (P < 0.05). The mean time of operation, observation period in ICU and being in hospital in EVAR group were shorter than OSR group (P < 0.05). But the cost of hospitalization in EVAR was far higher than that of OSR group (P < 0.05). In short term postoperative complications the OSR group was higher than the EVAR (P < 0.05), however, there was no statistically significant difference in death rate of the two groups during surrounding operation (P > 0.05).


CONCLUSION
EVAR has the advantages of mild trauma, less blood loss, quicker recovery after operation, and less disturbance to internal environment. Especially, it is suitable for the patients who can not undergo open surgery repair, but its cost is still higher.