[A meta-analysis of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair].

Objective: This study was aim to compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous access and open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Methods: Eligible studies were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Corchrane databases published in English from January 1999 to December 2015. Data extracted from each study were synthesized into overall odds ratios (OR) for technical success rates and complications. The outcomes on technical success rates and complications of both totally percutaneous access and open femoral exposure group were compared. Results: After a systematic review of English language articles, ten studies including 1 504 patients were eligible for the Meta-analysis. The technical success rates of the percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) group was 95.1%, close to that of femoral exposure (FE) group (97.5%). The difference did not show significantly (OR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.31-1.04, P>0.05). However, the incidence of total postoperative complications in PEVAR group was 8%, significantly lower than that in FE group (15.9%) (OR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.37-0.42, P<0.01). Conclusion: PEVAR is associated with a similar technical success rate and lower complication incidence rate comparing with FE. Therefore, it could be as a preferred approach of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.