LAUSR

OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between transarterial and translumbar (direct aneurysm sac puncture) approaches for persistent type II endoleak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHODS We searched multiple electronic databases (up to October 31, 2018) for eligible trials in patients with type II endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs that evaluated the outcomes of translumbar embolization vs transarterial embolization. The primary outcome was clinical success (absence of the endoleak on the last examination); the secondary outcomes were technical success and complication rate. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. RESULTS Among the 904 studies screened, 9 studies with 354 participants were included in this review. None of the studies reported rupture or mortality. The translumbar group had a relatively higher clinical success rate than the transarterial group, but this difference was not statistically significant (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.00-5.25; P = .05; I2 = 52%). The technical success rate was significantly higher in the translumbar group than in the transarterial group (OR, 13.32; 95% CI, 3.41-52.07; P = .0002; I2 = 0%). No significant difference was found in the complication rate of the two groups (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.26-4.96; P = .85; I2 = 0%). We also included five studies that reported the clinical outcomes of open repair. All patients were technically treated by open repair, and 58 of 60 patients owned clinical success during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS The translumbar route was more successful in obliterating the endoleak on follow-up imaging. When repeated endovascular embolizations fail, a laparotomy should follow.