Open versus endovascular repair of penetrating non-aortic arterial injuries: A systematic review and meta analysis.

Background: Non-aortic arterial injuries are common and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Historically, open surgical repair (OSR) was the conventional method of repair. With recent advancements in minimally invasive techniques, endovascular repair (ER) has gained popularity. We sought to compare outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular and open repairs of traumatic non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus Database from January 1st, 1990, to March 20th, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full text review. Articles assessing clinically important outcomes between OSR and ER in penetrating arterial injuries were included. Exclusion criteria included blunt injuries, aortic injuries, pediatric populations, review articles, and non-English articles. Odds ratios (OR) and Cohen's d ratios were used to quantify differences in morbidity and mortality.

Results: A total of 3770 articles were identified, of which 8 met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The articles comprised a total of 8369 patients of whom 90 % were male with a median age of 28 years. 85 % of patients were treated with OSR while 15 % underwent ER. With regards to injury characteristics, those who underwent ER were less likely to present with concurrent venous injuries (OR: 0.41; 95 %CI: 0.18, 0.94; p = 0.03). Regarding hospital outcomes, patients who underwent ER had a lower likelihood of in-hospital or 30-day mortality (OR: 0.72; 95 %CI: 0.55, 0.95; p = 0.02) and compartment syndrome (OR: 0.29, 95 %CI: 0.12, 0.71; p = 0.007). The overall risk of bias was moderate.

Conclusion: Endovascular repair of non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries is increasingly common, however open repair remains the most common approach. Compared to ER, OSR was associated with higher odds of compartment syndrome and mortality. Further prospective research is warranted to determine the patient populations and injury patterns that most significantly benefit from an endovascular approach.

Level Of Evidence: Level III, Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses.