Laparoscopic versus open lumbar sympathectomy in critical limb threatening ischemia patients in Egypt

Purpose The treatment of critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is revascularization. Lumbar sympathectomy (LS) could be attempted when this is not amenable. Using laparoscopic techniques to perform LS adds the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Methods twenty-four patients, presenting with non-reconstructable CLTI and rest pain, were randomly divided into group I (14 patients) who underwent retroperitoneoscopic lumbar sympathectomy (RPLS) and group II (10 patients) who had conventional open lumber sympathectomy (COLS). Results RPLS patients had shorter hospital stays, fewer intraoperative complications, and less postoperative pain. However, the mean operative time was significantly longer (86.4 +/- 9.1 min, p-value: 0.02) in the RPLS group but decreased with each subsequent case after that. The differences in post-operative capillary refill time, ABI, TBI, and TcPO2 were not statistically significant between both groups (p-values: 0.97, 0.13, 0.32, 0.10, respectively). However, the difference in the quality-of-life score was statistically significant; the mean (+/- SD) SF-36 score increased from 48 +/- 6.8 to 81 +/- 4.4 (p-value < 0.001) in RPLS group compared to 52 +/- 8.8 to 59 +/- 1.2 (p-value: 0.52) in COLS group. Conclusion RPLS is feasible, safe, and has the advantages of minimally invasive surgery: minimal blood loss, less intraoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, and less postoperative pain. However, the operative time in RPLS cases is longer than in the COLS; training on the procedure is recommended to improve the learning curve.