Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular therapy versus open surgical repair for the traumatic lower extremity arterial injury

Abstract

Objective For traumatic lower extremity artery injury, it is unclear whether it is better to perform endovascular therapy (ET) or open surgical repair (OSR). This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of ET versus OSR for traumatic lower extremity artery injury. Methods The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for studies. Cohort studies and case series reporting outcomes of ET or OSR were eligible for inclusion. Robins-I tool and an 18-item tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was amputation. The secondary outcomes included fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, mortality, length of stay and lower extremity nerve injury. We used the random effects model to calculate pooled estimates. Results A total of 32 studies with low or moderate risk of bias were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that patients who underwent ET had a significantly decreased risk of major amputation (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21–0.85; I2=34%) and fasciotomy or compartment syndrome (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.20–0.50, I2 = 14%) than patients who underwent OSR. No significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding all-cause mortality (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.75–1.64, I2 = 31%). Patients with ET repair had a shorter length of stay than patients with OSR repair (MD=-5.06, 95% CI -6.76 to -3.36, I2 = 65%). Intraoperative nerve injury was just reported in OSR patients with a pooled incidence of 15% (95% CI 6%–27%). Conclusion Endovascular therapy may represent a better choice for patients with traumatic lower extremity arterial injury, because it can provide lower risks of amputation, fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, and nerve injury, as well as shorter length of stay.