Meta-analysis of the crossed versus standard limb configuration in endovascular aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether the crossed-limb technique confers better or worse clinical outcomes compared to the standard straight limb configuration in standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS We conducted a systematic review to identify studies comparing outcomes of EVAR with the crossed versus standard limb configuration. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched in March 2021 using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search interface developed by the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Summary estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR), risk difference (RD), or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI), applying the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance statistical method. Random-effects models were employed. RESULTS Four observational studies qualified for inclusion, reporting a total of 1132 patients. All presented contemporary experiences. Baseline clinical characteristics were largely similar between patients with and without the crossed-limb configuration, but the anatomy tended to be less favourable in patients treated with the crossed-limb technique. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary outcomes: limb occlusion (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.65 - 3.19), type Ib endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.04), type III endoleak (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 - 0.03); or secondary outcomes: perioperative mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.03), type Ia endoleak (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 - 0.02), type II endoleak (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.51 - 3.74), procedure duration (MD 18.07 min, 95% CI -1.14-37.29). Inconsistency across studies was low for all outcomes. The studies were judged to be of high quality on the NOS. The main bias identified using the ROBINS-I tool was due to confounding. CONCLUSION The crossed-limb technique was not found to confer inferior clinical outcomes in the medium term compared to the standard limb configuration in patients who undergo standard EVAR.