Endovascular Popliteal Repair Increases Reinterventions Despite Similar Limb Salvage

The Durability Dilemma in Popliteal Artery Aneurysm Repair

Popliteal artery aneurysms represent a significant clinical challenge due to their high risk of thromboembolic complications and subsequent limb loss [1, 2]. While traditional open surgical bypass has long been the standard of care, the rapid evolution of endovascular technology has introduced stent grafting (the catheter-based placement of a fabric-covered mesh to exclude the aneurysm from circulation) as a less invasive alternative [3, 4]. Current guidelines emphasize the importance of evidence-based revascularization strategies that account for patient risk and anatomical complexity, yet long-term comparative data remain limited [5, 1, 6]. Clinicians often face a difficult choice between the immediate recovery advantages of endovascular techniques, such as a significantly shorter hospital stay (median 1 day versus 3 days; P < 0.001), and the established durability of open repair [7, 8]. A retrospective study of 222 limbs now clarifies the long-term trade-offs between these two approaches over 16 years of clinical experience [7].

A 16-Year Retrospective Comparison

The researchers conducted a retrospective review of all popliteal artery aneurysms treated within a single healthcare system from 2008 to 2024. This longitudinal analysis included 222 limbs in 183 patients, comprising 171 open surgical repairs and 51 endovascular repairs. To assess durability, the study tracked patients for a mean duration of 47.9 ± 41.6 months. The median length of follow-up was statistically similar between the two treatment arms, recorded at 36.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 8.7 to 57.1) for the endovascular group and 37.4 months (IQR 13.9 to 75.2) for the open repair group (P = 0.207). This consistency ensures that observed differences in outcomes were not biased by varying observation windows. The analysis evaluated long-term outcomes reaching five years or more, including all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The researchers utilized Kaplan-Meier survival curves (a statistical method to estimate the probability of remaining free from complications over time) alongside standard comparative tests. To refine the data, the team applied negative binomial regression, the Mann-Whitney U test, and the Breslow test (a statistical method that places more weight on early time points to detect differences in immediate postoperative outcomes). Finally, Cox proportional hazards modeling (a regression technique used to identify independent predictors of clinical outcomes while controlling for multiple variables) ensured a rigorous evaluation of the risks associated with each surgical approach.

Primary Patency and Early Reintervention Risks

The longitudinal analysis revealed a significant divergence in durability, specifically regarding primary patency (the interval from the initial procedure until any subsequent intervention is required for stenosis or occlusion). Open surgical repair demonstrated superior primary patency rates at every measured interval over the five-year study period. At the one-year mark, the primary patency rate for open repair was 79.8% compared to 72.1% for endovascular repair. This gap widened by year three, with rates of 70.8% and 58.5%, respectively. By the five-year follow-up, the open repair group maintained a primary patency of 67.3%, while the endovascular group remained at 58.5% (P = 0.036). For practicing vascular specialists, this indicates a more frequent need for secondary procedures to maintain vessel flow in patients receiving stent grafts. The timing of these failures also differed. The researchers utilized the Breslow test, which emphasizes early time points in survival analysis, and found a significant difference at P = 0.045. This suggests that endovascular repairs experienced a greater frequency of early reintervention events compared to the open surgical group. Furthermore, multivariate analysis confirmed this early instability. Endovascular repair was associated with a nearly twofold increase in the risk of losing primary patency within the first year, demonstrating a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 to 3.93, P = 0.056). These data suggest that while endovascular options offer immediate procedural advantages, they carry a higher burden of early maintenance to ensure long-term success.

Limb Salvage and Long-Term Stability

While the study identified a higher rate of initial failure in the endovascular group, these differences did not extend to more complex measures of vessel maintenance. The researchers found no significant differences in primary-assisted patency (the maintenance of blood flow through prophylactic intervention before a graft or stent completely occludes). Similarly, there were no significant differences in secondary patency (the restoration of blood flow after a total occlusion has occurred). These metrics remained comparable between the open and endovascular cohorts at the one-year, three-year, and five-year intervals. Clinically, this means that while endovascular repairs may require more frequent maintenance, the vessels can be successfully kept open through subsequent procedures. The most critical clinical outcome, the preservation of the limb, remained stable across both treatment arms. The researchers reported that freedom from major amputation at one, three, and five years was 98.1% versus 98.0%, 97.3% versus 95.4%, and 96.1% versus 95.4% (P = 0.489) for the open and endovascular groups, respectively. These data indicate that despite the increased reintervention burden associated with stent grafting, the ultimate rate of limb salvage is statistically equivalent to that of open surgical repair. For the practicing clinician, this suggests that the choice between techniques may be guided by patient comorbidities and the ability to comply with rigorous postoperative surveillance, rather than a fundamental difference in the long-term risk of limb loss.

Quantifying the Reintervention Burden

The immediate clinical advantage of endovascular repair is a significantly reduced recovery period in the acute setting. The researchers found that endovascular repair patients had a shorter hospital length of stay, with a median of 1 day (interquartile range [IQR] 0 to 1) compared to 3 days (IQR 2 to 5) for those undergoing open surgery (P < 0.001). However, this initial efficiency is offset by a higher long-term procedural workload. Patients in the endovascular cohort experienced significantly higher cumulative reinterventions per limb, with an incidence rate ratio (a statistical measure representing the ratio of event rates between two groups) of 1.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 2.73, P = 0.003). While the overall freedom from reintervention did not differ significantly between repair methods (P = 0.064), the increased frequency of repeat procedures suggests a more intensive postoperative management phase for those receiving stent grafts. Beyond the frequency of procedures, the study identified endovascular repair as a specific risk factor for complications within the first year. Multivariate analysis showed that endovascular repair independently predicted 1-year major adverse limb events (MALE), which include serious complications such as graft occlusion or the need for urgent thrombectomy (hazard ratio [HR] 2.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 4.17, P = 0.045). For the practicing physician, these findings clarify the trade-off inherent in technique selection. While endovascular options offer a less invasive initial experience and shorter hospitalization, they carry a doubled risk of major limb-related complications in the first 12 months. Consequently, the choice of repair should be tailored to the patient's ability to tolerate open surgery versus their capacity for frequent follow-up and the likelihood of requiring secondary interventions to maintain limb health.

References

1. Conte MS, Bradbury AW, Kolh P, et al. Global vascular guidelines on the management of chronic limb-threatening ischemia. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.02.016

2. Nativel M, Potier L, Alexandre L, et al. Lower extremity arterial disease in patients with diabetes: a contemporary narrative review. Cardiovascular Diabetology. 2018. doi:10.1186/s12933-018-0781-1

3. Patel S, Hughes C, Jones KG, et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Endovascular Popliteal Aneurysm Repair Using the Hemobahn/Viabahn Stent-Graft. Journal of Endovascular Therapy. 2015. doi:10.1177/1526602815579252

4. Dieter RS. Transluminal endovascular stent grafting of aortic dissections and aneurysms: A concise review of the major trials. Clinical Cardiology. 2001. doi:10.1002/clc.4960240503

5. Aboyans V, Ricco J, Bartelink M, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). European Heart Journal. 2017. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx095

6. Wanhainen A, Herzeele IV, Gonçalves FB, et al. Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.ejvs.2023.11.002

7. Cook TA, Sayed HFE, Bandy NL, et al. Popliteal artery aneurysm repair with endovascular stent grafting matches surgical bypass at a cost of higher reintervention burden over a 16-year experience.. Journal of vascular surgery. 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2026.04.024

8. Lyden SP, Soukas P, De A, et al. DETOUR2 trial outcomes demonstrate clinical utility of percutaneous transmural bypass for the treatment of long segment, complex femoropopliteal disease. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2024. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2024.02.004