Meta‐analysis of fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgical repair of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms over the last 10 years

Background Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms pose a significant challenge whether managed endovascularly or by open surgery. Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is now well established, but few studies have compared it with open surgical repair (OSR). The aim of this systematic revi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BJS open 2019-10, Vol.3 (5), p.572-584
Hauptverfasser: Jones, A. D., Waduud, M. A., Walker, P., Stocken, D., Bailey, M. A., Scott, D. J. A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms pose a significant challenge whether managed endovascularly or by open surgery. Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is now well established, but few studies have compared it with open surgical repair (OSR). The aim of this systematic review was to compare short‐ and long‐term outcomes of FEVAR and OSR for the management of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms. Methods A literature search was conducted of the Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed databases. Reasons for exclusion were series with fewer than 20 patients, studies published before 2007 and those concerning ruptured aneurysms. Owing to variance in definitions, the terms ‘juxta/para/suprarenal’ were used; thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were excluded. Primary outcomes were 30‐day/in‐hospital mortality and renal insufficiency. Secondary outcomes included major complication rates, rate of reintervention and rates of endoleak. Results Twenty‐seven studies were identified, involving 2974 patients. Study designs included 11 case series, 14 series within retrospective cohort studies, one case–control study and a single prospective non‐randomized trial. The pooled early postoperative mortality rate following FEVAR was 3·3 (95 per cent c.i. 2·0 to 5·0) per cent, compared with 4·2 (2·9 to 5·7) per cent after OSR. After FEVAR, the rate of postoperative renal insufficiency was 16·2 (10·4 to 23·0) per cent, compared with 23·8 (15·2 to 33·6) per cent after OSR. The major early complication rate following FEVAR was 23·1 (16·8 to 30·1) per cent versus 43·5 (34·4 to 52·8) per cent after OSR. The rate of late reintervention after FEVAR was higher than that after OSR: 11·1 (6·7 to 16·4) versus 2·0 (0·6 to 4·3) per cent respectively. Conclusion No significant difference was noted in 30‐day mortality; however, FEVAR was associated with significantly lower morbidity than OSR. Long‐term durability is a concern, with far higher reintervention rates after FEVAR. Antecedentes Los aneurismas de la aorta abdominal yuxtarrenal plantean un gran reto sobre si tratarlos de forma endovascular o mediante cirugía abierta. La reparación del aneurisma con endoprótesis fenestrada (fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair, FEVAR) no esta consolidada, sin embargo, algunos pocos estudios, la comparan con la reparación quirúrgica por vía abierta (open surgical repair, OSR). El objetivo de esta revisión sistemática fue comparar los resultados a corto y largo plazo de FEVAR y OSR para el tr
ISSN:2474-9842
2474-9842
DOI:10.1002/bjs5.50178