Key result
Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass cuts postoperative complications ~53% vs. open surgery.
Why the study?
Post-operative complications after laparoscopic versus open aortobifemoral bypass for aorto-iliac occlusive disease with TASC II type D lesions were not well compared in a randomized trial.
Does laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass reduce post-operative complications compared to open aortobifemoral bypass in patients with aorto-iliac occlusive disease?
RCT (n=126)
non-blinded
1:1
Yes
Does laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass reduce post-operative complications compared to open aortobifemoral bypass in patients with aorto-iliac occlusive disease?
Effect estimate: difference -40 percentage points (95% CI -54 to -22)
Absolute Event Rate: 34% vs 73%
Absolute Risk Reduction: 40%
p-value: p=< .001
Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass significantly reduces post-operative complications compared to open surgery in patients with severe aorto-iliac occlusive disease.
Supports laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass to reduce complications in aorto-iliac occlusive disease; confirms RCT superiority over open surgery.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare post-operative complications after laparoscopic and open aortobifemoral bypass (ABFB) for aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD). METHODS: The Norwegian Laparoscopic Aortic Surgery Trial (NLAST) is a multicentre, non-blinded, parallel group, randomised controlled superiority trial. The trial was funded by Oslo University Hospital and conducted at three Norwegian public hospitals between March 2013 and November 2022. In this randomised study, 126 patients with TransAtlantic InterSociety Consensus II (TASC II) type D lesions, with debilitating lifestyle limiting intermittent claudication or chronic limb threatening ischaemia, clinically classified as Fontaine IIb or worse, were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either laparoscopic ABFB (n = 63) or open ABFB (n = 63) (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01793662). The primary outcome was post-operative complications, including systemic, vascular, and local complications, during a follow up of 2.9 years. The primary analysis was conducted on an intention to treat basis, with an additional supporting analysis performed per protocol. RESULTS: Allocated surgery was performed in 62 (98%) and 60 (95%) individuals in the laparoscopic and open ABFB groups, respectively. Post-operative complications occurred in 21/62 patients (34%) in the laparoscopic group and 44/60 patients (73%) in the open ABFB group (difference -40 percentage points, 95% confidence interval -54 - -22; p < .001), during a mean follow up of 3.6 ± 2.5 years. The 30 day mortality rate was 2% (1/62) and 2% (1/60) for laparoscopic and open ABFB, respectively. Limb based primary patency, primary assisted patency, and secondary patency rates at one year were 98%, 98%, and 98% for laparoscopic ABFB and 95%, 96%, and 96% for open ABFB, respectively. At two years the rates were 98%, 98%, and 98% for laparoscopic ABFB and 94%, 95%, and 95% for open ABFB. CONCLUSION: Patients with AIOD, TASC II type D lesions have significantly fewer post-operative complications after laparoscopic than open ABFB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kazmi et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in aorto-iliac occlusive disease (AIOD) (n=126). Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass vs. Open aortobifemoral bypass was evaluated on post-operative complications, including systemic, vascular, and local complications (difference -40 percentage points, 95% CI -54 to -22, p=< .001). Laparoscopic aortobifemoral bypass significantly reduced post-operative complications compared to open surgery (34% vs 73%; difference -40 percentage points, 95% CI -54 to -22; p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: