To compare the efficacy and safety of complete puncture and traditional endovascular repair in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Clinical data of 102 patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm admitted from January 2019 to January 2023 were retrospectively analyzed, and divided into control group (traditional endovascular repair treatment, n=51 cases) and experimental group (complete puncture treatment, n=51 cases) according to different endovascular repair methods. SPSS 25.0 software was used to analyze the data. Measurement data such as operation-related indicators and perioperative indicators were expressed as (), and independent sample t test was performed. The statistical data of complications and survival rate were expressed by [cases (%)] and χ² test was performed. Kaplan-Meier survival curve was drawn to analyze the survival outcomes of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Compared with the control group, the experimental group had shorter operation duration, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative activity time and shorter hospital stay (P < 0.05). The incidence of complications such as puncture point hematoma and internal leakage in experimental group was lower than that in control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in survival status between the two groups after 6 months of follow-up (P > 0.05).

Compared with traditional endovascular repair, endovascular repair with complete puncture technology has more obvious advantages in shortening operation time, reducing intraoperative blood loss and reducing complications, and is helpful to promote postoperative recovery of patients. However, the short-term efficacy of the two operations in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm is comparable.