ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (F-EVAR) and chimney endovascular aortic repair (Ch-EVAR) in treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (JRAAA).MethodsThe databases including the PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, etc. were searched to collect the randomized controlled trails (RCTs) and non-RCTs about the F-EVAR versus Ch-EVAR for the JRAAA. The retrieval time was from inception to November 2019. The studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the data were extracted and the quality was evaluated by 2 reviewers independently. Then the meta-analysis was conducted using the RevMan 5.1 software.ResultsA total of 9 non-RCTs involving 536 patients were included, 315 of whom were in the F-EVAR group, 221 of whom were in the Ch-EVARF group. The results of meta-analysis showed that: Compared with the F-EVAR group, the Ch-EVAR group had a higher incidence of type Ⅰ endoleak [OR=0.31, 95%CI (0.12, 0.85), P=0.02] and a lower incidence of target organ injury [OR=2.96, 95%CI (1.30, 6.72), P=0.010]. But there were no differences in the technical success rate, vascular restenosis, re-intervention rate, and 30 d mortality between the 2 groups (P>0.05).ConclusionsBoth F-EVAR and Ch-EVAR are safe and effective treatments for JRAAA. F-EVAR has a relative low incidence of type Ⅰ endoleak, but a relatively high incidence of target organ damage. However, for the limitation of quantity and quality of the included studies, this conclusion still requires to be further proved by performing large scale and high quality RCTs. It suggests that doctors should choose a best therapy for patients with JRAAA according to an integrative disease assessment.