Background and purpose: Surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm has become more frequent and the mortality associated with elective surgery has been reduced, but the overall mortality for ruptured aneurysm remains unacceptably high. The dilemma for the Vascular surgeon is whether to operate early and electively on asymptomatic small aneurysms, less than 5 cm in diameter, or to delay surgery, adopting a wait-and-see attitude. The purpose of this retrospective study was to review a recent 5-year experience of elective aneurysm surgery, with special emphasis on the perioperative outcome of surgical repair of asymptomatic small aneurysms, in order to evaluate whether early mortality and morbidity justify an aggressive approach, Methods, The report concerns a series of 141 consecutive patients who underwent aneurysm repair for small (n = 63, group I) and large aneurysms (n = 76, group II), For each group, the age, sex, risk factors and associated diseases, operative and aortic cross-clamping times, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion volume, type of operation and graft, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and causes of death were recorded and compared. Results: The majority of patients were males. The mean age of the patients was lower in group I than in group II. No statistically significant difference was found from the comparison of the risk factors and associated diseases in groups I and II. The mean operating time was 82 minutes in group I, 98 minutes in group II, and the aortic cross-clamping time was also shorter in group I (37 min versus 52 min), whereas blood loss was greater, with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05), The operative mortality rate was higher in group II than in group I (1.3% versus 0%, P = NS), Conclusions: Elective small aneurysm repair is recommended in good-risk patients for the following reasons: (i) the operative mortality and morbidity rates are lower in small than in large aneurysm patients, and (ii) the small aneurysm repair is technically easier and safer to perform, In addition, there are two other considerations that are more difficult to quantify, but may support an aggressive approach: the cost-benefit ratio is better with early diagnosis and elective surgery, before an emergency operation is required, and personal choice and psychological reasons can induce patients to prefer early elective repair to periodic monitoring by ultrasound or computed tomography scans. (C) 1999 The International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
