Meta-analysis of retrojugular versus antejugular approach for carotid endarterectomy

• Published in: Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England Vol. 96; no. 3; pp. 184 - 189
• Main Authors: Antoniou, G A, Murray, D, Antoniou, S A, Kuhan, G, Serracino-Inglott, F
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BMJ Publishing Group LTD 01.04.2014; Royal College of Surgeons
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Cardiovascular disease; Carotid arteries; Cranial Nerve Injuries - etiology; Cranial Nerve Injuries - mortality; Dissection; Endarterectomy, Carotid - adverse effects; Endarterectomy, Carotid - methods; Endarterectomy, Carotid - mortality; Epidemiologic Methods; Humans; Injuries; Ischemic Attack, Transient - etiology; Ischemic Attack, Transient - mortality; Meta-analysis; Neck; Quality; Review; Statistical analysis; Stroke - etiology; Stroke - mortality; Studies; Surgery; Systematic review; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0035-8843; 1478-7083
• DOI: 10.1308/003588414x13814021679357

The retrojugular approach for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been reported to have the advantages of shorter operative time and ease of dissection, especially in high carotid lesions. Controversial opinion exists with regard to its safety and benefits over the conventional antejugular approach. A systematic review of electronic information sources was conducted to identify studies comparing outcomes of CEA performed with the retrojugular and antejugular approach. Synthesis of summary statistics was undertaken and fixed or random effects models were applied to combine outcome data. A total of 6 studies reporting on a total of 740 CEAs (retrojugular approach: 333 patients; antejugular approach: 407 patients) entered our meta-analysis models. The retrojugular approach was found to be associated with a higher incidence of laryngeal nerve damage (odds ratio [OR]: 3.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-7.07). No significant differences in the incidence of hypoglossal or accessory nerve damage were identified between the retrojugular and antejugular approach groups (OR: 1.09 and 11.51, 95% CI: 0.31-3.80 and 0.59-225.43). Cranial nerve damage persisting during the follow-up period was similar between the groups (OR: 2.96, 95% CI: 0.79-11.13). Perioperative stroke and mortality rates did not differ in patients treated with the retrojugular or antejugular approach (OR: 1.26 and 1.28, 95% CI: 0.31-5.21 and 0.25-6.50). Currently, there is no conclusive evidence to favour one approach over the other. Proof from a well designed randomised trial would help determine the role and benefits of the retrojugular approach in CEA.