Home > Journals > International Angiology > Past Issues > International Angiology 2020 October;39(5) > International Angiology 2020 October;39(5):381-9



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


REVIEW  PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL DISEASE Editor’s choice • Free accessfree

International Angiology 2020 October;39(5):381-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.20.04387-4


language: English

Endovascular versus open repair for popliteal aneurysm: a review on limb salvage and reintervention rates

Rita S. SOUSA 1 , José OLIVEIRA-PINTO 2, 3, 4, 5, Armando MANSILHA 2, 3

1 Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 2 Department of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal; 3 Department of Surgery and Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 4 Cardiovascular Research and Development Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 5 Department of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, Hospital CUF Porto, Porto, Portugal

INTRODUCTION: Open repair remains the gold standard technique for popliteal aneurysm repair. However, the endovascular approach has gained increased popularity. Comparison between these techniques remain crucial to aid the physician choice, yet, data on mid-term outcomes lack in the literature. The present review aims to compare the limb salvage and reintervention rates in these different approaches.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify publications on endovascular treatment or open repair of popliteal artery aneurysms (PAAs). Primary endpoints were reintervention and limb salvage.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-seven studies were selected for analysis describing a total of 5425 patients: 1651 PAAs underwent endovascular repair and 4166 PAAs were treated with open surgery. The technical success rates varied between 83.3% to 100% in the endovascular group and 79% to 100% in the open repair. For endovascular repair, the limb salvage at 1 year ranged between 84.2% and 100%, at 3 years between 88.9% and 100%; and at 5 years between 64.7% and 100%. The reintervention rate at 1 year ranged between 3.7% and 21%, at 3 years between 18.9% and 28%, and at 5 years between 34.5% and 38%. For open repair, the limb salvage varied between 94.3% and 100% at 1 year, 94.5% and 99% at 3 years, and 86.4% to 97% at 5 years. Regarding the reintervention rate, at 1 year was 12.8% and 13%, at 3 years 3.6% and 12%, and at 5 years varied between 15.7% and 30%.
CONCLUSIONS: Both endovascular and open repair of popliteal aneurysms represent safe options for popliteal aneurysm repair. Yet, on mid-term, open repair is associated with greater limb salvage and fewer reintervention rates. Still, further studies are needed to access the long-term durability of this technique and its suitability in emergency settings.

KEY WORDS: Endovascular procedures; Popliteal artery; Aneurysm; Limb salvage

top of page