Skip to main content
Download PDF

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

World Journal of Emergency Surgery volume 19, Article number: 16 (2024) Cite this article

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.

Introduction

Although the incidence of traumatic lower extremities arterial injuries ranged from 0.3 to 0.4% in trauma patients in the United States [1, 2], these arterial injuries could lead to an amputation rate as high as 16.2% [3, 4]. Timely and effective vascular repair plays a vital role in saving limbs and lives, but first-line revascularization strategy remains controversial.

As current guidelines have not covered evidence-based decision making for optimal revascularization procedure for traumatic artery injury [5, 6], an increasing number of publications emerged reporting outcomes based on their center experience [2, 7,8,9] Open surgical repair (OSR) remained as the classic standard procedure for traumatic injuries to the lower extremity arteries with high limb salvage rates [9,10,11]. However, OSR is sometimes accompanied with larger surgical wounds, longer operating time and potentially higher wound complications [12]. Meanwhile, with fast advances in endovascular equipment, endovascular therapy (ET) has been serving as one of the major procedures for vascular injuries in the past two decades [7, 13, 14], especially in blunt trauma patients [13]. Compared to OSR, ET may have potential advantages in the aspect of prompt control of bleeding without vessel exposure and nerve injury, minimally invasive wound, and shorter operating time [11, 13]. However, whether OSR or ET provides better postoperative outcomes for patients with traumatic lower extremity arterial injury remains inconclusive and ought to be further elucidated.

By summarizing all available evidence, the present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent OSR versus ET for traumatic lower extremity arterial injury, hoping to aid in establishment of evidence-based decision making.

Materials and methods

Review design

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) standards [15]. The present study has been reported in line with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) Guidelines [16, 17]. This protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021289629).

Literature search

Systematic searches were conducted in the following databases from inception through to January 14, 2023, without language restrictions: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials. The keywords of searching terms are listed as follows: type of intervention: ‘‘bypass’’, ‘‘open’’, ‘‘endovascular’’, ‘‘angioplasty’’, and ‘‘stenting’’; interested disease: ‘‘lower extremity’’ and “artery injury”. The details of the search strategy are available in Appendix 1.

Study selection and criteria for consideration of studies

Titles, abstracts, and full-text publications were independently screened by two authors (YQ and JW), and the prespecified inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) clinical studies reporting outcomes of patients with traumatic lower extremity artery injuries below the inguinal ligament, including injuries to the iliac artery; (2) studies reported outcomes after ET or/and OSR of traumatic artery injuries, outcomes included survival, amputation, compartment syndrome, and other related outcomes; (3) The study design included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, or case series studies with a sample size of more than 10 participants. Studies were excluded if no specific data can be extracted for ET or OSR treatment, or if a duplicate cohort was included. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (DY).

Data collection, extraction, and outcomes of interest

Two independent researchers (YQ and JW), blind to each other, collected and extracted data using a predefined extraction form the eligible studies, and any discrepancies were checked and resolved with a third reviewer (TW). The following baseline characteristics of included patients were collected: age, sex, number of patients, study design, lesion site, injury type (blunt, penetrating, or unspecified), and intervention details (endovascular therapy was defined as stent placement or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), while open surgical repair included suture, incision, bypass, ligition and patch techniques). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of postoperative major amputation (major amputation defined as above ankle amputation). Secondary outcomes included fasciotomy or compartment syndrome (defined as a combination event of fasciotomy or compartment syndrome), all-cause mortality, length of stay (LOS), and nerve injury.

Risk of bias assessment

Based on the new version of the Cochrane handbook for systematic review and meta-analysis, the risk of bias was independently assessed by two reviewers (YQ and JW) with the Robins-I tool for non-randomized studies [18]. An 18-item tool was used to assess the quality of the case series. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by a third reviewer (DY or TW).

Statistical methods

We performed the data analyses using Review Manager Version 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, København, Denmark) and STATA 14.1 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) based on methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 6.2). For continuous variables, means and standard deviations were used to pool the overall estimates, and if means and standard deviations were unavailable, the method introduced by Hozoet al. [19] was applied for conversion. For dichotomous data, we calculated odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the Mantel–Haenszel method [20]. Statistical heterogeneity across studies was estimated using the I2 statistic, and an I2 value larger than 75% indicates high heterogeneity [21]. To further explore the potential source of heterogeneity, post hoc meta-regression analyses were performed for the outcomes of high heterogeneity. Funnel plots were conducted to assess publication bias of the included studies. We also performed subgroup analyses stratified by injured artery and injury type. all outcomes were showed in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of findings for ET and OSR in traumatic lower extremity arterial injury
Full size table

Results

Description of included studies

After literature search, a total of 863 records were identified through the electronic database search. After duplicates were removed, 762 potential publications were left for further assessment. The literature selection generated 34 articles, of which two publications [22, 23] had partially overlapping cohorts derived from the same database (The National Trauma Data Bank). We only included Potter’s study because it had larger sample size with propensity score matching. Finally, 32 studies (10 cohorts [13, 22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]and 22 case series [8, 10, 12, 31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49] of 1577 ET and 6097 OSR patients were included in the quantitative analysis. The PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Fig. 1. Eleven studies [8, 10, 28, 29, 32,33,34, 40, 42, 43, 45] reported outcomes of popliteal artery injury. As for injury types, six articles [12, 25, 30, 31, 39, 40] reported penetrating injuries and four articles [25, 37, 40, 43] reported blunt injuries, others involved mixed types of injury. Study characteristics are presented in Table 2 and Supplemental Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study selection flow diagram

Full size image
Table 2 Characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Risk of bias of included studies

The results of the ROBINS-1 tool for cohort studies showed low to moderate risk of bias in most domains of the included studies. Most of the included case series were assessed to be of moderate or high quality, and few were of low quality. The results of quality assessment are shown in Supplemental Tables 2 and Supplemental Table 3.

Amputation

A total of 19 articles, comprising 2893 patients, reported the major amputation rate after endovascular or open surgical repair of traumatic artery injuries of lower limbs. Data from studies conducted by Branco et al. [26], Abdou et al. [25], and Potter [23] et al. were adjusted for propensity score matching. The pooled results from seven cohort studies suggested that patients who underwent ET had a significantly decreased risk of major amputation than patients who underwent OSR. (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21–0.85; I2 = 34%, Fig. 2A). The pooled incidence major amputation rate was 3% (95% CI 0%–9%; I2 = 85.13%, Fig. 3A) in 828 ET patients and 9% (95% CI 6%–12%; I2 = 87.96%, Fig. 3B) in 5102 OSR patients. The pooled incidence major amputation rate was 3% (95% CI 0%–9%; I2 = 86.40%, Supplemental Fig. 1A) in ET adults and 8% (95% CI 5%–12%; I2 = 81.10%, Supplemental Fig. 1B) in OSR adults. ET had a significantly decreased risk of major amputation than patients who underwent OSR in adults. (OR = 0.47, 95% CI 0.27–0.80; I2 = 34%, Supplemental Fig. 1C).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of (A) studies for the difference in major amputation, (B) studies for difference in fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, (C) studies for the difference in mortality, and (D) studies for the difference in length of stay in patients with traumatic lower extremity arterial injury comparing ET vs. OSR. M-H = Mantele-Haenszel; CI = confidence interval; IV = inverse variance; ET = endovascular therapy; OSR = open surgical repair

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

The pooled estimate for amputation in ET (A) and OSR (B) in patients with traumatic lower extremity arterial injury. ES = estimate proportions; CI = confidence interval; ET = endovascular therapy; OSR = open surgical repair

Full size image

Among the included studies, a total of 3 studies from 4 cohorts underwent propensity score matching analysis. Subgroup analysis of the propensity score-matched data revealed that patients undergoing ET had significantly lower major amputation risks compared to those undergoing OSR (OR = 0.32, 95% CI 0.14–0.72; I2 = 42%, Supplemental Fig. 1D). We conducted a meta-analysis using all available data from the included studies, comprising a total of 6623 patients. The results indicate that patients undergoing ET had a significantly lower risk of major amputation compared to those OSR (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.36–0.73; I2 = 0%, Supplemental Fig. 1E).

Subgroup analysis stratified by injured arteries suggested ET was also associated with a significantly decreased risk of amputation in patients with iliac or femoral arterial injury (OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.05–0.45; I2 = 0%, Supplemental Fig. 1F), with an estimated amputation rate of 3% (95% CI 0%–12%; I2 = 92.49%) in ET group and 6% (95% CI 3%–9%; I2 = 88.43%) in OSR group. As for patients with isolated popliteal artery injury, the pooled results showed an estimated amputation rate of 5% (95% CI 0%–19%; I2 = 49.72%) in the ET group and 11% (95% CI 5%–18%; I2 = 85.32%) in OSR group.

In the subgroup of patients who suffered from penetrating artery injury, the results showed an estimated amputation rate of 5% (95% CI 4%–7%; I2 = 0.00%) in OSR group. In the subgroup of patients suffered from fracture, the results showed an estimated amputation rate of 10% (95% CI 7%–14%; I2 = 85.57%) in OSR group and 3% (95% CI 0%–10%; I2 = 91.25%) in ET group. Meta-regression analysis suggested that the pooled estimate for amputation was significantly associated with injury severity score (ISS) rather than fracture (ISS: t=-2.52, 95% CI 0.86–0.99, Supplemental Fig. 1G; fracture: t = 1.88, 95% Cl -0.88–7.94). in addition, the funnel plot on amputation rates appeared to be symmetrical on visual inspection, suggesting no publication bias, that could be confirmed statistically with the harbord’s linear regression test (p = 0.949) and egger’s linear regression test (p = 0.840).

Fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, nerve injury

A total of 15 studies including 1163 ET patients and 4175 OSR patients reported outcomes of Fasciotomy or compartment syndrome. The pooled estimate of fasciotomy or compartment syndrome rate in the OSR subgroup (23%, 95% CI 13%–36%; I2 = 98.24%) was over two times higher than that of ET group (9%, 95% CI 3%–16%; I2 = 92.92%). In the further meta-analysis of four cohort studies, the results also revealed a significantly higher risk of fasciotomy or compartment syndrome in OSR than ET (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.20–0.50, I2 = 14%, Fig. 2B). We conducted a meta-analysis using all available data from the included studies, the results showed a significantly lower risk of fasciotomy or compartment syndrome in ET than OSR (OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.26–0.74, I2 = 0%, Supplementary Fig. 2A). The pooled estimate of compartment syndrome rate in the OSR subgroup (8%, 95% CI 2%–17%; I2 = 0%) was over two times higher than that of ET group (3%, 95% CI 0%–10% I2 = 93.83%). In the further meta-analysis of cohort studies, the results also revealed a significantly higher risk of compartment syndrome in OSR than ET (OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25–0.50, I2 = 0%, Supplemental Fig. 2B). As for nerve injury, this complication was only reported in OSR patients, with an estimated rate of 15% (95% CI 6%–27%; I2 = 93.76%).

Mortality and length of stay

Based on 1228 ET and 4285 OSR patients, the pooled estimate of postoperative mortality rate was 4% (95% CI 1%–9%; I2 = 87.58, Supplemental Fig. 3A) in the ET group and 2% (95% CI 1–4%; I2 = 58.67%, Supplemental Fig. 3B) in the OSR group. The in-hospital mortality results from the study by Butler et al. were included and meta-analysis of six cohorts revealed no significant difference in all-cause mortality between ET and OSR groups (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.75–1.64, I2 = 31%, Fig. 2C). We conducted a meta-analysis using all available data from the included studies, and the results showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality between ET and OSR groups (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.57–1.60, I2 = 82%, Supplementary Fig. 3C). Four cohort studies, comprising 3434 patients, reported the length of stay after ET or OSR. The pooled results suggested ET Patients had a significantly shorter length of stay than patients with OSR (MD=-5.06, 95% CI -6.76 to -3.36, I2 = 65%, Fig. 2D). Significant heterogeneity was noted, and we further performed subgroup analysis stratified by injury types. In patients with penetrating injury, similar results were observed with no heterogeneity (MD=-6.12, 95% CI -7.21 to -5.03, I2 = 0%, Supplemental Fig. 3D).

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, the present meta-analysis is the first systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on revascularization decision making in traumatic lower extremity arterial injury. Our findings suggested ET was associated with a significantly lower risk of amputation, fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, and nerve injury, as well as shorter length of stay, but no significant difference was found regarding postoperative all-cause mortality.

Since the advancement of endovascular interventions in the past several decades, more first-line treatment options emerged for traumatic arterial injury. Previous systematic and meta-analysis showed that endovascular therapy had a better clinical result for the traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta, including a lower risk of mortality and a satisfactory outcome in the duration of intensive care and total hospital stay, but with a higher rate of reintervention compared with open repair [50]. However, a summary of evidence regarding the treatment strategy for traumatic lower extremity arterial injury is lacking.

The incidence of limb amputation varies widely in lower extremity artery injury, ranging from 0 to 17% in ET patients and 3 to 18% in OSR patients [13, 22, 25, 27]. The present results showed that ET was associated with a significantly decreased risk of amputation than OSR, which might be attributed to shorter ischemic time of distal limbs from arrival to restoration of perfusion [43]. Previous studies showed that shortening the ischemic time as close to six hours as possible may lead to higher possibility of limb salvage [32, 51]. It was noteworthy that the severity of peripheral tissue damage was also a predictor of the risk of amputation [10], which would also determine the type of injured arteries (blunt or penetrating). Moreover, post-traumatic tissue infection in lower limb injuries is also a contributing factor to limb amputation. However, which severity score can predict lower extremity amputation in traumatic artery injury remained inconclusive [32]. In our present analysis, the results of meta-regression demonstrated a significant association between injury severity score (ISS) and the risk of low extremity amputation in patients. Unfortunately, we could not perform a subgroup analysis according to traumatic severity, as only a few studies reported detailed results of the injury severity score, and the present analysis cannot distinguish the risk of amputations which result from limb ischemia rather than tissue loss or infection. These distinctions would be meaningful if future studies could adjust the severity of trauma when comparing the postoperative outcomes of ET and OSR.

In addition to injury severity, injured site and involved artery were also important fact that affect the decision making of clinicians. Isolated popliteal artery injury has now become the focus among all injured arteries, for either endovascular or open repair is somewhat tactical and skillful, especially for the distal segment of the popliteal artery. Among included publications, the main open procedure for isolated popliteal artery injury was either end-to-end anastomosis or bypass, and the common endovascular procedure was the implantation of stent graft and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. But concerns aroused regarding the long-term patency of stent graft near the knee joint. Previous studies indicated that the 6-month primary patency rate of traumatic popliteal artery injury is around 90% after OSR, and 82.9% after ET at 6 months. However, ET can have a 100% secondary patency rate at one year [8]. The results of our meta-analysis showed that the incidence of amputation after OSR (11%) was almost twice of that after ET (5%). Moreover, the incidence of amputation after OSR is more than three times as high as that after ET in patients with lower extremity fracture, though fracture might not predict amputation, which is similar to the previous results [51]. Despite the lower risk of postoperative amputation after ET, outcomes with longer follow-up are needed to verify the advantages of ET.

Compartment syndrome after tissue reperfusion could be a disturbing problem that can lead to irreversible necrosis of distal limbs. Some studies showed that ET could reduce the incidence of fasciotomy compared to OSR [23, 27], while some other studies did not observe such difference [22, 25]. Consistent with the results of amputation, our results suggested the risk of fasciotomy or compartment syndrome was higher in the OSR group compared to ET group. However, a possible bias may present, because fasciotomies may be performed prophylactically in the OSR patients, whereas the fasciotomies were more likely carried out on demands for therapeutic purposes on compartment syndrome in ET patients [8, 23]. Nevertheless, our results also showed that ET was associated with a lower risk of compartment syndrome, which further confirmed the findings regarding fasciotomy.

Prior studies demonstrated that Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) are independent predictors of death after arterial injury [26]. Recent study suggested that endovascular therapy could reduce 30-day and 1-year mortality in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta compared to open surgical repair [50]. As for traumatic lower extremity arterial injury, potter et al. also demonstrated that OSR was associated with a higher risk of mortality [23], probably due to severer degree of trauma. Butler et al. shows that ET is associated with a higher risk of discharge mortality, which might be associated with a higher age and NISS scores among ET patients compared to OSR patients. Most included studies did not observe significant difference in mortality between two groups, which was consistent with the result of our meta-analysis. Likewise, the severity of injury should be taken into account when analyzing the results, which as limited in the current study due to lack of data.

Limitation

Although this work is the largest meta-analysis regarding postoperative outcomes after ET versus OSR for lower extremity arterial injury, some limitations must be considered when interpreting our results. Firstly, the analysis was limited by the observational design of the included studies, most of which were retrospective, with the inherent limitation of selection bias. The second limitation relied on the concerns of significant heterogeneity in some results. To address this issue as much as possible, subgroup analyses were conducted and meta-regression was performed, meanwhile, in studies by Branco et al., Abdou et al., and Potter et al., we utilized propensity-matched data for analysis. Third, the severity of trauma was an important confounder of outcomes, but current data restricted us from performing further analysis. Even so, we applied meta-regression to demonstrate the association between ISS and the risk of amputation, which indicated that ISS may be utilized as a useful tool to adjust for the risk of amputation in future studies. Finally, Inconsistencies in treatment approaches across different studies may introduce certain biases. Future prospective cohort studies will help in evaluating the impact of specific treatment modalities on lower extremity arterial injuries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, endovascular therapy could offer the advantages of lower risks of postoperative amputation, fasciotomy, or compartment syndrome, and nerve injury, as well as shorter length of stay, compared to OSR. But these two different procedures might not affect the risk of postoperative all-cause mortality. Although large prospective studies are needed to further confirm the long-term outcomes of ET, the results of this review may aid in the decision-making process of revascularization in patients with traumatic lower extremity artery injury.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

ET:

Endovascular therapy

OSR:

Open surgical repair

MOOSE:

Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

AMSTAR:

Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews

LOS:

Length of stay

ISS:

Injury Severity Score

GCS:

Glasgow Coma Scale

References

  1. Liang NL, Alarcon LH, Jeyabalan G, et al. Contemporary outcomes of civilian lower extremity arterial trauma. J Vasc Surg. 2016;64:731–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Franz RW, Shah KJ, Halaharvi D, et al. A 5-year review of management of lower extremity arterial injuries at an urban level i trauma center. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:1604–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hafez HM, Woolgar J, Robbs J. Lower extremity arterial injury: results of 550 cases and review of risk factors associated with limb loss. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:1212–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tze-Woei, Tan, Fernando L, Joglar N et al. Limb outcome and mortality in Lower and Upper Extremity arterial Injury. J Vascular Endovascular Surg 2011;45.

  5. Alam HB, DiMusto PD. Management of Lower Extremity Vascular Trauma. Curr Trauma Rep. 2015;1:61–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bjorck M, Earnshaw JJ, Acosta S, et al. editors. ‘s Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Acute Limb Ischaemia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2020;59: 173–218.

  7. Desai SS, DuBose JJ, Parham CS, et al. Outcomes after endovascular repair of arterial trauma. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:1309–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jiang C, Chen Z, Zhao Y, et al. Four-year outcomes following endovascular repair in patients with traumatic isolated popliteal artery injuries. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73:2064–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Keeley J, Koopmann M, Yan H, et al. Factors Associated with Amputation following popliteal vascular injuries. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29:881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lang NW, Joestl JB, Platzer P. Characteristics and clinical outcome in patients after popliteal artery injury. J Vasc Surg. 2015;61:1495–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fortuna G, DuBose JJ, Mendelsberg R, et al. Contemporary outcomes of lower extremity vascular repairs extending below the knee: a multicenter retrospective study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;81:63–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Sharrock AE, Tai N, Perkins Z, et al. Management and outcome of 597 wartime penetrating lower extremity arterial injuries from an international military cohort. J Vasc Surg. 2019;70:224–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Branco BC, DuBose JJ, Zhan LX, et al. Trends and outcomes of endovascular therapy in the management of civilian vascular injuries. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60:1297–e13071.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reuben BC, Whitten MG, Sarfati M, et al. Increasing use of endovascular therapy in acute arterial injuries: analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46:1222–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Brooke BS, Schwartz TA, Pawlik TM. MOOSE Reporting guidelines for Meta-analyses of Observational studies. JAMA Surg. 2021;156:787–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg (2021):88105906.

  17. hea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. J Bmc Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mantel NJ, Haenszel WH. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:719–48.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Higgins J, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis. J Br Med J 2003;327.

  22. Degmetich S, Brenner M, Firek M et al. Endovascular repair is a feasible option for superficial femoral artery injuries: a comparative effectiveness analysis. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2020; 1–8.

  23. Potter HA, Alfson DB, Rowe VL et al. Endovascular versus open repair of isolated superficial femoral and popliteal artery injuries. J Vasc Surg 2021;74: 814 – 22.e1.

  24. Abdel Wahab MA, Farouk N, Saleh OI. Early outcomes of traumatic femoral artery aneurysm (Open Repair versus Endovascular Treatment). Ann Vasc Surg. 2019;54:146–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Abdou H, Kundi R, DuBose JJ, et al. Repair of the Iliac arterial Injury in Trauma: an endovascular operation? J Surg Res. 2021;268:347–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Branco BC, Naik-Mathuria B, Montero-Baker M, et al. Increasing use of endovascular therapy in pediatric arterial trauma. J Vasc Surg. 2017;66:1175–e831.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Butler WJ, Calvo RY, Sise MJ, et al. Outcomes for popliteal artery injury repair after discharge: a large-scale population-based analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;86:173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dua A, Zepeda R, Hernanez FC, et al. The national incidence of iatrogenic popliteal artery injury during total knee replacement. Vascular. 2015;23:455–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Maithel S, Fujitani RM, Grigorian A, et al. Outcomes and predictors of Popliteal Artery Injury in Pediatric Trauma. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;66:242–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ratnasekera A, Pulido O, Durgin S, et al. Venous thromboembolism after penetrating femoral and popliteal artery injuries: an opportunity for increased prevention. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2020;5:e000468.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Aksoy M, Taviloglu K, Yanar H, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter embolization in arterial injuries of the lower limbs. Acta Radiol. 2005;46:471–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Asensio JA, Dabestani PJ, Miljkovic SS, et al. Popliteal artery injuries. Less ischemic time may lead to improved outcomes. Injury. 2020;51:2524–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bernhoff K, Rudstrom H, Gedeborg R, et al. Popliteal artery injury during knee replacement: a population-based nationwide study. Bone Joint J. 2013;95–b:1645–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dua A, Patel B, Desai SS, et al. Comparison of military and civilian popliteal artery trauma outcomes. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59:1628–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dua A, Patel B, Kragh JF, et al. Long-term follow-up and amputation-free survival in 497 casualties with combat-related vascular injuries and damage-control resuscitation. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73:1517–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Georgakarakos E, Efenti GM, Koutsoumpelis A, et al. Five-Year Management of Vascular injuries of the extremities in the Real-World setting in Northeastern Greece: the role of iatrogenic traumas. Ann Vasc Surg. 2021;74:264–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hundersmarck D, Hietbrink F, Leenen LPH et al. Blunt popliteal artery injury following tibiofemoral trauma: vessel-first and bone-first strategy. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2021;20.

  38. Huynh TTT, Pham M, Griffin LW, et al. Management of distal femoral and popliteal arterial injuries: an update. Am J Surg. 2006;192:773–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kufner S, Cassese S, Groha P, et al. Covered stents for endovascular repair of iatrogenic injuries of iliac and femoral arteries. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015;16:156–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Magnotti LJ, Sharpe JP, Tolley B, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after traumatic popliteal artery injury: a 20-year experience. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020;88:197–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mousa A, Zakaria OM, Hanbal I, et al. Operative management of non-iatrogenic pediatric and adolescence peripheral arterial trauma: an experience from a resource challenged setting. Asian J Surg. 2019;42:761–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. O’Banion LA, Dirks R, Saldana-Ruiz N et al. Contemporary outcomes of traumatic popliteal artery injury repair from the popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injury in trauma study. J Vasc Surg 2021:e320–1.

  43. Pourzand A, Fakhri BA, Azhough R, et al. Management of high-risk popliteal vascular blunt trauma: clinical experience with 62 cases. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2010;6:613–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Prieto JM, Van Gent JM, Calvo RY, et al. Evaluating surgical outcomes in pediatric extremity vascular trauma. J Pediatr Surg. 2020;55:319–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rehman ZU. Outcomes of popliteal artery injuries repair: autologous vein versus prosthetic interposition grafts. Ann Vasc Surg. 2020;69:141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sahin M, Yucel C, Kanber EM, et al. Management of traumatic arteriovenous fistulas: a tertiary academic center experience. Turkish J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018;24:234–8.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sciarretta JD, Macedo FI, Chung EL, et al. Management of lower extremity vascular injuries in pediatric trauma patients: a single level I trauma center experience. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76:1386–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Trellopoulos G, Georgiadis GS, Aslanidou EA, et al. Endovascular management of peripheral arterial trauma in patients presenting in hemorrhagic shock. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2012;53:495–506.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. White R, Krajcer Z, Johnson M, et al. Results of a multicenter trial for the treatment of traumatic vascular injury with a covered stent. J Trauma - Injury Infect Crit Care. 2006;60:1189–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Harky A, Bleetman D, Chan JSK, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair for the traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. J Vasc Surg. 2020;71:270–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Futchko J, Parsikia A, Berezin N, et al. A propensity-matched analysis of contemporary outcomes of blunt popliteal artery injury. J Vasc Surg. 2020;72:189–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Jichun Zhao from West China Hospital for his review and supervision, and Professor Yazhou He from West China Fourth Hospital for his guidance on data analysis methods.

Funding

This work was granted by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82302152, 82300542), Sichuan Province Science and Technology Support Program [grant number: 2022YFS0366, 2022YFS0187, 2022YFS0359].

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yuhan Qi, Jiarong Wang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Vascular Surgery Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 37 Guo Xue Alley, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, 610041, China

    Yuhan Qi, Jiarong Wang, Ding Yuan, Pengchao Duan, Li Hou & Tiehao Wang

  2. West China School of Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

    Yuhan Qi, Pengchao Duan & Li Hou

Authors
  1. Yuhan Qi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiarong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ding Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pengchao Duan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Li Hou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tiehao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YQ: Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft; JW: Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft; DY: Investigation, Methodology, Validation; PD: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – review & editing; LH: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing; TW: Conceptualization; Validation; Writing – review & editing; All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiehao Wang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was exempt from institutional review board approval.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Disclosure information

Nothing to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qi, Y., Wang, J., Yuan, D. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular therapy versus open surgical repair for the traumatic lower extremity arterial injury. World J Emerg Surg 19, 16 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-024-00544-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-024-00544-9

Keywords

World Journal of Emergency Surgery

ISSN: 1749-7922