Endovascular and open approaches to non-thrombosed popliteal aneurysm repair: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: Endovascular repair of popliteal artery aneurysms is a relatively new technique that is still undergoing evaluation. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes following open and endovascular approaches.

Methods: All published studies comparing outcomes following open and endovascular popliteal aneurysm were included. Endpoints included operative duration, length of stay, and postoperative complications including short-term patency rates. Outcomes were combined using a random-effects meta-analytical technique and differences assessed using odds ratios (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD) and log hazards ratio (HR).

Results: Three studies comprising 141 patients (37 endovascular; 104 open) were included. No significant differences in patient characteristics were seen. Operative duration was significantly longer for endovascular repair (WMD 120 minutes, p<0.001). Thirty day graft thrombosis (OR 5.05, p=0.06) and reintervention (OR 18.80, p=0.03) were more likely following endovascular repairs. Postoperative length of stay was shorter in the endovascular group (WMD--3.9 days, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in long-term primary patency rates (HR 1.70, p=0.53).

Conclusions: Endovascular repair of popliteal artery aneurysms offers similar medium-term benefits as an open repair. However, short-term graft thrombosis and reintervention rates are significantly greater. With the current technology it is difficult to justify endovascular treatment of popliteal aneurysms.