Comparison of sympathectomy and cilostazol treatment results in non-revascularized critical leg ischemia

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this retrospective study is to compare the efficacy of sympathectomy and cilostazol therapy in critical limb ischemia that cannot be revascularized. Material and Method: This study was retrospectively conducted on 30 patients who underwent lumbar sympathectomy (Group 1) and received cilostazol treatment (Group 2) between January 2017 and August 2020. Demographic data, comorbidity, complications, wound healing, walking distance, and pain scale records of the patients were determined by examining the hospital registry system and statistical analysis was performed. Results: In the study, no significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of walking distance and ischemic pain in the statistical analysis of the data before treatment, at the 3rd, 6th, 12th, and 24th months (p> 0.05). However, a statistically significant difference was found between the pre-treatment data and the data at the 3rd, 6th, 12th, and 24th months in both Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of walking distance and ischemic pain (p˂0.001 ). In the time periods followed in both groups, it was observed that there was an increase in walking distance and a decrease in ischemic pain. Conclusion: Cilostazol treatment may be preferred as a good alternative treatment method compared to lumbar sympathectomy in critical leg ischemia. Keywords: Critical leg ischemia; sympathectomy; cilostazol