This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Systematic review of endovascular intervention and surgery for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease. BJS 2019; 106: 13-22.
Published: 24th December 2018
Authors: X. Jia, Z. D. Sun, J. V. Patel, K. Flood, D. D. Stocken, D. J. A. Scott et al.
Background
Endovascular intervention has emerged as a potential alternative to open surgery in treating common femoral artery (CFA) atherosclerotic disease. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the safety and efficacy of both techniques.
Method
Thirteen electronic databases from 1980 to 3 January 2018 were searched. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Interventional Procedure Programme quality assessment tool. Safety and efficacy outcome measures were analysed.
Results
Thirty‐one studies reporting 813 endovascular procedures and 3835 endarterectomies were included. Only two small RCTs have been reported. The methodological quality of available studies was generally low and follow‐up short. Safety endpoint assessment revealed a similar risk of wound haematoma for endovascular intervention and endarterectomy (5·5 (95 per cent c.i. 0·2 to 17·2) versus 3·9 (1·7 to 6·9) per cent respectively), a lower risk of wound infection with endovascular procedures (0 versus 5·9 (3·4 to 9·0) per cent) and a lower risk of wound lymph leakage (0 versus 5·7 (3·3 to 8·6) per cent). Efficacy endpoint assessment at 1 year identified that endovascular intervention had a lower primary patency rate than endarterectomy (78·8 (73·3 to 83·8) versus 96·0 (92·2 to 98·6) per cent respectively), a higher revascularization rate (16·0 (6·1 to 29·4) versus 5·8 (1·0 to 14·2) per cent) and a similar amputation rate (2·7 (1·2 to 4·8) versus 1·9 (0·7 to 3·8) per cent).
Conclusion
Endovascular intervention of CFA disease appears to reduce the risk of wound complications but is associated with a lower patency rate and increased rates of subsequent revascularization procedures. Standardization of the endovascular technique and quantification of the proportions of patients suitable for either technique are required.
Full textYou may also be interested in
Original article
Authors: S. Zommorodi, M. Bottai, R. Hultgren
Original article
Authors: A. Saratzis, N. E. M. Jaspers, B. Gwilym, O. Thomas, A. Tsui, R. Lefroy et al.
Original article
Authors: J. M. Czerniecki, M. L. Thompson, A. J. Littman, E. J. Boyko, G. J. Landry, W. G. Henderson et al.
Original article
Authors: N. Nair, G. Kvizhinadze, G. T. Jones, R. Rush, M. Khashram, J. Roake et al.
Original article
Authors: D. C. Bosanquet, A. J. Sanders, F. Ruge, J. Lane, C. A. Morris, W. G. Jiang et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: S. A. S. Hamann, L. Timmer‐de Mik, W. M. Fritschy, G. R. R. Kuiters, T. E. C. Nijsten, R. R. Bos et al.
Systematic review
Authors: A. J. A. Meershoek, E. E. Vries, D. Veen, H. M. Ruijter, G. J. Borst, A. Garcia‐Pastor et al.
Original article
Authors: S. F. Cheng, M. M. Brown, R. J. Simister, T. Richards
Original article
Authors: J. S. Lindholt, L. M. Rasmussen, R. Søgaard, J. Lambrechtsen, F. H. Steffensen, L. Frost et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: S. Vähäaho, O. Mahmoud, K. Halmesmäki, A. Albäck, K. Noronen, P. Vikatmaa et al.
Systematic review
Authors: R. M. A. Bulder, E. Bastiaannet, J. F. Hamming, J. H. N. Lindeman
Original article
Authors: D. C. Norvell, M. L. Thompson, E. J. Boyko, G. Landry, A. J. Littman, W. G. Henderson et al.