This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Noel, A. A. Articles by Stanson, A. W. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Noel, A. A. Articles by Stanson, A. W. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Optimal Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and Urologic Malignancies: Benefits of Simultaneous Surgical Treatment

Peter Gloviczki, MD

Kenneth J. Cherry, Jr., MD

Thomas C. Bower, MD

John W. Hallett, Jr., MD

Jean M. Panneton, MD

David Whitley, MD

Division of Vascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905

Michael L. Blute, MD

Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905

Anthony W. Stanson, MD

Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905

The coexistence of urologic malignancy (UM) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is rare. Simultaneous treatment may increase morbidity, whereas staged operations delay necessary treatment. We reviewed our experience to develop guidelines for evaluation and management. Clinical data of all patients diagnosed between 1980 and 1998 with both AAA and UM, who also had staged or simultaneous surgical treatment were reviewed. Four thousand forty-seven patients underwent AAA repair during the study period at our institution. Of these, 18 (0.44%) patients, 16 men and two women (mean age: 74 years, range: 61 to 92) had UM. UM was discovered incidentally in nine patients with AAA with computed tomography (CT) scan (7) and ultrasonography (2). In one patient with AAA, hematuria raised the suspicion of UM. Eight patients were diagnosed with AAA during evaluation of UM by CT scan or ultrasound (7) or during laparotomy (1). Initial signs and symptoms included abdominal pain (33%), gross hematuria (33%), and urinary tract infections (17%), although 33% were asymptomatic. The AAA was symptomatic at first examination in three (17%) patients, 14 (78%) patients had hypertension, and two (11%) had renal insufficiency (overall mean serum creatinine: 1.6, range: 0.8 to 3.7). Mean AAA diameter was 5.8 cm (range: 3.8 to 8 cm). Aortography documented significant contralateral renal artery disease in two patients. Twelve patients underwent simultaneous AAA repair and resection of UM; the operations were staged in six (AAA repair first in 2, nephrectomy first in 4). One patient required emergent repair of a ruptured AAA three days after nephrectomy. UM was treated with nephrectomy in 17 patients, and with bilateral ureterectomy and cystectomy in one. A straight aortic graft was implanted in seven patients, a bifurcated graft in ten, and one had extra-anatomic reconstruction. Two patients required reconstruction of the contralateral renal artery. The 30-day mortality rate was 0% after staged and 6% after simultaneous repair (p= >0.1). Major perioperative complications occurred more frequently after simultaneous (42%) than after staged repair (33%), although the difference was not significant (p= >0.1). Two patients developed postoperative renal failure. Seventeen patients were followed for an average of 3.9 years (14 days to 10.8 years). Three (17%) patients died of recurrent cancer at 1, 10.7, and 10.8 years after surgery.

Patients with resectable UM have satisfactory long-term survival, which justifies aggressive treatment of concomitant AAA. Aortography in these patients is suggested to exclude contralateral renal artery disease. Complications were frequent, but simultaneous repair did not increase morbidity or mortality significantly. The risk of AAA rupture after nephrectomy, need to correct contralateral renal artery disease at the time of nephrectomy, and disadvantage of delaying treatment of UM are compelling reasons to favor simultaneous treatment of AAA and UM.

Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Vol. 33, No. 6, 603-609 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/153857449903300604


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?