A Comparison of Endovascular Versus Open Repair of Popliteal Artery Aneurysms: An Updated Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Traditionally, popliteal artery aneurysms (PPAs) were treated via open repair (OR). However, more recently endovascular repair (EVR) approaches have become more common for the treatment of PPAs. The present meta-analysis therefore sought to conduct an up-to-date review of studies comparing the relative safety and efficacy of these 2 repair strategies. To that end, patient outcomes including primary patency, operating time, hospital stay duration, and re-intervention, amputation, and graft occlusion within 30 days were compared for these OR and EVR approaches. METHODS: Studies in which OR and EVR were compared as treatments for PPAs were identified through systematic searching of the PubMed and Embase databases. Any studies either analyzing only one of these treatments in isolation or analyzing <5 patients were not included in this analysis. For all relevant studies, patient demographic information and outcome details were compiled. Risk of bias was analyzed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The odds ratios, mean differences, and hazard ratios (HRs) for patient outcomes were estimated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: In total, we identified 17 relevant studies including a single randomized controlled trial and 16 retrospective cohort studies, incorporating 6887 total cases (1662 EVR and 5225 OR). The quality of evidence for all measured outcomes was deemed to be very low or low according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Rates of primary patency were found to be significantly higher for patients treated via OR relative to those treated via EVR (HR = 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-2.30; P = .03). Operative and hospitalization durations, in contrast, were significantly lower for patients treated via EVR. Patients treated via EVR also experienced significantly higher rates of graft thrombosis and reintervention within 30 days relative to patients treated via OR. However, no significant differences were observed between treatments with respect to rates of patient amputation (OR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.55-1.85; P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: The available data suggest that PPA repair via EVR is a safe alternative to OR, but that short-term graft thrombosis and reintervention rates are significantly greater for the former approach. Moreover, few studies to date have compared these techniques and those that were largely retrospective in nature with relatively low-quality evidence, making it difficult to make definitive statements regarding the relative safety and efficacy of these 2 repair strategies. Additional population-based large-scale studies are therefore essential in order to conduct a robust evaluation of the safety and utility of EVR as an alternative to OR for PPA repair.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,039 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,060 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».