Objective To investigate the learning curve of percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (PEVAR). Methods A retrospective analysis of clinical data of 40 cases of PEVAR performed by a vascular surgeon from December 2012 to August 2015 in our hospital was made .According to the operation date , all the cases were divided into 4 groups ( G1 -G4 ) with 10 cases in each group .The data of 4 groups was analyzed including the operation time , technical success rate , complications , blood loss and number of vascular closure devices. Results The operation time in G1 was significantly longer than that in G2, G3, and G4 [(19.9 ±4.3) min vs.(16.4 ±3.9) min, q=3.484, P<0.05;(19.9 ±4.3) min vs.(10.4 ±2.1) min, q=9.458, P<0.05; (19.9 ±4.3) min vs.(10.3 ±1.5) min, q=9.557, P<0.05].The operation time of G2 was also longer than that in G3 and G4 [(16.4 ±3.9) min vs.(10.4 ±2.1)min, q=5.973, P<0.05;(16.4 ±3.9) min vs.(10.3 ±1.5) min, q=6.073, P<0.05] and there was no significant difference between G3 and G4 (q=0.100, P>0.05).There was no statistical difference (P>0.05) in technical success rate between G1 (80%), G2 (80%), G3 (100%), and G4 (100%).No significant difference was found in complications , blood loss and number of vascular closure devices among the 4 groups (P>0.05). Conclusions PEVAR is a gradual process and there is a learning curve.The operation time is significantly shorter and technical success rate is improved after the completion of 20 cases.%目的探讨完全经皮主动脉腔内修复术（ percutaneous endovascular aortic repair ， PEVAR）的学习曲线。方法回顾性分析2012年12月～2015年8月我科同一主治医师完成的40例PEVAR的临床资料，按手术时间顺序分为4组（ G1～G4组），每组10例，对4组手术时间、技术成功率、并发症、出血量、缝合器数量进行比较。结果 G1组手术时间（19．9±4.3）min，显著长于G2组（16．4±3．9）min、G3组（10．4±2．1）min和G4组（10．3±1．5）min（q＝3．484，P＜0．05；q＝9．458， P＜0．05；q＝9．557，P＜0．05），G2组手术时间明显长于G3组和G4组（q＝5．973，P＜0．05；q＝6．073，P＜0．05），G3组和G4组手术时间无统计学差异（q＝0．100，P＞0．05）。 G1、G2组技术成功率均为80％，与G3、G4组（均为100％）无统计学差异（χ2＝4.444，P＝0．217）。4组在并发症、出血量和使用缝合器数量方面无统计学差异（ P＞0．05）。结论 PEVAR存在学习曲线，20例后完成PEVAR学习曲线。
展开▼
