Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rita Silveira de Sousa
Data de Publicação: 2020
Tipo de documento: Dissertação
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Texto Completo: https://hdl.handle.net/10216/128774
Resumo: INTRODUCTIONː Open repair remains the gold standard technique for popliteal aneurysm repair. However, the endovascular approach has gained increased popularity. Comparison between these techniques remain crucial to aid the physician choice, yet, data on mid term outcomes lack in literature. The present review aims to compare the limb salvage and reintervention rates in these different approaches. EVIDENCE ACQUISITIONː A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify publications on endovascular treatment or open repair of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs). Primary endpoints were reintervention and limb salvage. EVIDENCE SYNTHESISː Twenty-seven studies were selected for analysis describing a total of 5425 patients: 1651 PAAs underwent endovascular repair and 4166 PAAs were treated with open surgery. The technical success rates varied between 83.3 to 100% in the endovascular group and 79 to 100% in the open repair. For endovascular repair, the limb salvage at 1 year ranged between 84.2 and 100%, at 3 years between 88.9 and 100%; and at 5 years between 64.7 and 100%. The reintervention rate at 1 year ranged between 3.7 and 21%, at 3 years between 18.9 and 28%, and at 5 years between 34.5 and 38%. For open repair, the limb salvage varied between 94.3 and 100% at 1 year,94.5 and 99 % at 3 years, and 86.4 to 97% at 5 years. Regarding the reintervention rate, at 1 year was 12.8 and 13%, at 3 years 3.6 and 12%, and at 5 years varied between 15.7 and 30%. CONCLUSIONSː Both endovascular and open repair of popliteal aneurysms represent safe options for popliteal aneurysm repair. Yet, on mid-term, open repair is associated with greater limb salvage and fewer reintervention rates. Still, further studies are needed to access the long-term durability of this technique and its suitability in emergency settings.
id RCAP_96c345e109e9b2b02eba392ca33718ea
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/128774
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention ratesCiências médicas e da saúdeMedical and Health sciencesINTRODUCTIONː Open repair remains the gold standard technique for popliteal aneurysm repair. However, the endovascular approach has gained increased popularity. Comparison between these techniques remain crucial to aid the physician choice, yet, data on mid term outcomes lack in literature. The present review aims to compare the limb salvage and reintervention rates in these different approaches. EVIDENCE ACQUISITIONː A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify publications on endovascular treatment or open repair of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs). Primary endpoints were reintervention and limb salvage. EVIDENCE SYNTHESISː Twenty-seven studies were selected for analysis describing a total of 5425 patients: 1651 PAAs underwent endovascular repair and 4166 PAAs were treated with open surgery. The technical success rates varied between 83.3 to 100% in the endovascular group and 79 to 100% in the open repair. For endovascular repair, the limb salvage at 1 year ranged between 84.2 and 100%, at 3 years between 88.9 and 100%; and at 5 years between 64.7 and 100%. The reintervention rate at 1 year ranged between 3.7 and 21%, at 3 years between 18.9 and 28%, and at 5 years between 34.5 and 38%. For open repair, the limb salvage varied between 94.3 and 100% at 1 year,94.5 and 99 % at 3 years, and 86.4 to 97% at 5 years. Regarding the reintervention rate, at 1 year was 12.8 and 13%, at 3 years 3.6 and 12%, and at 5 years varied between 15.7 and 30%. CONCLUSIONSː Both endovascular and open repair of popliteal aneurysms represent safe options for popliteal aneurysm repair. Yet, on mid-term, open repair is associated with greater limb salvage and fewer reintervention rates. Still, further studies are needed to access the long-term durability of this technique and its suitability in emergency settings.2020-05-182020-05-18T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesisapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/10216/128774TID:202618064engRita Silveira de Sousainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-02-27T18:18:58Zoai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/128774Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T22:44:52.468314Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates
title Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates
spellingShingle Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates
Rita Silveira de Sousa
Ciências médicas e da saúde
Medical and Health sciences
title_short Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates
title_full Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates
title_fullStr Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates
title_full_unstemmed Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates
title_sort Endovascular vs open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates
author Rita Silveira de Sousa
author_facet Rita Silveira de Sousa
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rita Silveira de Sousa
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Ciências médicas e da saúde
Medical and Health sciences
topic Ciências médicas e da saúde
Medical and Health sciences
description INTRODUCTIONː Open repair remains the gold standard technique for popliteal aneurysm repair. However, the endovascular approach has gained increased popularity. Comparison between these techniques remain crucial to aid the physician choice, yet, data on mid term outcomes lack in literature. The present review aims to compare the limb salvage and reintervention rates in these different approaches. EVIDENCE ACQUISITIONː A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify publications on endovascular treatment or open repair of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs). Primary endpoints were reintervention and limb salvage. EVIDENCE SYNTHESISː Twenty-seven studies were selected for analysis describing a total of 5425 patients: 1651 PAAs underwent endovascular repair and 4166 PAAs were treated with open surgery. The technical success rates varied between 83.3 to 100% in the endovascular group and 79 to 100% in the open repair. For endovascular repair, the limb salvage at 1 year ranged between 84.2 and 100%, at 3 years between 88.9 and 100%; and at 5 years between 64.7 and 100%. The reintervention rate at 1 year ranged between 3.7 and 21%, at 3 years between 18.9 and 28%, and at 5 years between 34.5 and 38%. For open repair, the limb salvage varied between 94.3 and 100% at 1 year,94.5 and 99 % at 3 years, and 86.4 to 97% at 5 years. Regarding the reintervention rate, at 1 year was 12.8 and 13%, at 3 years 3.6 and 12%, and at 5 years varied between 15.7 and 30%. CONCLUSIONSː Both endovascular and open repair of popliteal aneurysms represent safe options for popliteal aneurysm repair. Yet, on mid-term, open repair is associated with greater limb salvage and fewer reintervention rates. Still, further studies are needed to access the long-term durability of this technique and its suitability in emergency settings.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-05-18
2020-05-18T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis
format masterThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10216/128774
TID:202618064
url https://hdl.handle.net/10216/128774
identifier_str_mv TID:202618064
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833599843281403904