Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is the main procedure in carotid surgery, as well as the most frequent vascular procedure. Two techniques of CEA are available : eversion and conventional plus patch angioplasty. Eversion CEA is anatomic procedure that reduces ischemic and total operative time. Simultaneous correction of the joined carotid kinking and coiling is possible, easy and safe, while the usage of patch is excluded. Thanks to oblique shape of anastomosis, eversion CEA is associated with low risk of long-term restenosis. The false anastomotic aneurysms occurrence is very rare, almost impossible after eversion CEA. However, the usage of carotid shunt during eversion CEA is not always simple, while proximal or distal extension of the carotid plaque can make eversion CEA more difficult and risky. Eversion CEA should be the first choice in carotid surgery. Conventional CEA is indicated in cases when carotid plaque is extended more than usual, as well as, if the usage of carotid shunt is necessary.

Patellar eversion during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a debated issue. The aim of this study is to perform a review of overlapping meta-analyses analyzing clinical outcomes of patellar eversion compared to noneversion. A search was performed in PubMed\\MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs;l comparison between TKAs with or without patellar eversion; and at least one outcome, such as reoperation rate, pain, and functional scores. Meta-analyses were evaluated with the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review (AMSTAR) score, addressing the most relevant one with the Jadad algorithm. Three meta-analyses were identified and included in this review. No significant differences were found regarding complications, quadriceps strength, functional, and radiological outcomes. The meta-analysis by Zan et al. was selected as the best available one. Patellar eversion group showed a shorter tourniquet time but a longer skin incision. In conclusion, eversion and noneversion techniques did not demonstrate any significant or clinically relevant difference. Level of Evidence: Level II, systematic review of meta-analyses.