Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A hybrid approach is being employed increasingly in the management of peripheral arterial disease. This study aimed to assess the surgical site infection (SSI) incidence of hybrid revascularisation (HR) compared with common femoral endarterectomy (CFEA) alone. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent CFEA or HR alongside CFEA between 2017 and 2021 including one year of follow up. The primary outcome was SSI incidence. Secondary outcomes included length of surgery, duration of admission, further revascularisation surgery, limb salvage, and death. Differences in outcomes were assessed with the Student's unpaired t test, chi square test, and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 157 groin incisions from 155 patients were included: 78 had CFEA procedures and 79 had HR procedures. No statistical difference was found between groups for age, sex, and indication for surgery. Surgical site infection occurred in five of the CFEA patients (6%) compared with seven of the HR patients (9%) (p = 0.77). The HR procedures took significantly longer, with an average of 299 minutes compared with 220 minutes for CFEA (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was identified for length of admission: median stay five days for CFEA vs. four days for HR (p = 0.44). Major amputation was performed within one year in five of the CFEA procedures (6%) and five of the HR procedures (6%) (p = 1.0). Further revascularisation surgery was attempted in two patients in the HR group and six patients in the CFEA group (p =. 17). No statistically significant difference was found in the one year mortality rate: eight CFEA (10%) and seven HR (9%) (p = 0.77). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent HR alongside CFEA did not have a statistically significantly increased incidence of SSI, despite increased surgical time. Using HR techniques enabled patients to have multilevel disease treated in one stage without an increased incidence of SSI.