Emergency treatment of popliteal aneurysms: Single center experience and systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular versus open repair

Background Popliteal artery aneurysms (PAA) were traditionally treated by open repair (OR). Endovascular repair (ER) has become a new treatment strategy. The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the current outcomes of OR and ER in the emergency treatment of PAA. Methods A systematic literature search of the PubMed/Medline database was carried out. Outcomes were 30-day mortality, morbidity, major amputation rate (30 days), major amputation rate (1 year), 1-year primary patency rate, 1-year secondary patency rate and 1-year survival. Additionally, we included clinical data of patients with popliteal aneurysms treated between 2009 and 2021 at the Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg. Results We identified two cohort studies from 2014 and 2015 with a total of 199 patients that underwent emergent surgery (39 ER and 160 OR). We also included 26 patients from our institution. For emergency treatment, 30-day major amputation rates (18% vs 3%, Odds Ratio 5.82, 95% CI [1.75; 19.30], p = .004), 30-day mortality rates (10% vs 1%, Odds Ratio 5.57, 95% CI [1.01; 30.58], p = .05), 1-year major amputation rates (15% vs 6% Odds Ratio 3.61, 95% CI [1.18; 11.09], p = .02), 1-year loss of primary patency (54% vs 23%, Odds Ratio 3.19, 95% CI [0.91; 11.20], p = .07), and 1-year loss of secondary patency (44% vs 12%, Odds Ratio 6.91, 95% CI [3.01; 15.83], p < .05) were higher in the ER group when compared to the OR group. Conclusion Endovascular repair represents an alternative approach for the emergency treatment of PAA. Limited evidence from the available non-randomized studies shows unfavorable outcomes for patients undergoing ER. However, the results are prone to selection bias, and only randomized trials comparing ER to OR might reveal whether a subgroup of patients would benefit from ER as primary treatment of PAA in an emergency setting.