Totally percutaneous vs cut‐down femoral artery access: Wound infection
Totally percutaneous showed no clear difference in wound infection (30‐day or in‐hospital) compared with cut‐down femoral artery access (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Totally percutaneous vs cut‐down femoral artery access Wound infection (30‐day or in‐hospital) · people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair Totally percutaneous showed no clear difference in wound infection (30‐day or in‐hospital) compared with cut‐down femoral artery access (moderate certainty). Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut‐down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal… (2023) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.18 [0.01, 3.59] | 3 studies · 318 participants | Moderate |
Totally percutaneous vs cut‐down femoral artery access Wound infection rate (30‐day or in‐hospital) · people undergoing elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut‐down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal… (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD010185.PUB3, superseded | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 181 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut‐down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.