2021
DOI: 10.1177/17085381211032765
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is percutaneous access superior to cutdown access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair? A meta-analysis

Abstract: Objective The objective is to investigate whether percutaneous access (pEVAR) is superior to cutdown access (cEVAR) in terms of safety and efficacy during endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from January 1999 to December 2020 for studies reporting on the comparison between percutaneous and cutdown techniques for endovascular repair of AAAs. Outcomes evaluated were technical success rates, access site-related complications and operat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 37 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The safety and efficacy of using SMCD in total percutaneous EVAR have been reported in several multicenter randomized studies and meta-analysis. 14-18 To this end, the SMCD failure rate of the present study adds to this experience and reports a similar overall SMCD failure rate. That said, the use of SMCD is safe at low conversion rates.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%
“…The safety and efficacy of using SMCD in total percutaneous EVAR have been reported in several multicenter randomized studies and meta-analysis. 14-18 To this end, the SMCD failure rate of the present study adds to this experience and reports a similar overall SMCD failure rate. That said, the use of SMCD is safe at low conversion rates.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 74%