Objective To compare the effectiveness, complications, and follow-up results between endovascular recanalization (EVR) and open surgical revascularization (OSR) in the treatment of peripheral pseudoaneurysm, so as to provide a reference for choosing a appropriate surgical procedure. Methods Clinical data of 62 cases of peripheral pseudoaneurysm between January 2001 and January 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. EVR was performed in 28 patients (EVR group) and OSR in 34 patients (OSR group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, tumor location, and diameter of tumor between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Results The operation time, blood loss, ICU monitoring time, and hospitalization time in EVR group were significantly shorter than those in OSR group (P lt; 0.05). In OSR group, 12 cases (35.29%) had early postoperative complications, including 2 deaths due to acute respiratory distress syndrome, 5 cases of pulmonary infection, 3 cases of wound infection, and 2 cases of deep vein thrombosis; in EVR group, 2 cases (7.14%) had early postoperative complications, including 1 case of hematoma at puncture site and 1 case of thrombosis in stent. There was significant difference in early postoperative complication incidence between 2 groups (χ2=6.691, P=0.008). The patients were followed up 12-39 months (mean, 26 months). In OSR and EVR groups after operation, the patency rates of the reconstructed vessels were 96.88% (31/32) and 92.86% (26/28) respectively at 12 months, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.014, P=0.905); the patency rates were 89.29% (25/28) and 84.00% (21/25) respectively at 24 months, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.322, P=0.570). Conclusion Compared with OSR, EVR is a minimally invasive, safe, and effective therapy for peripheral pseudoaneurysm with the advantages of less bleeding, shorter hospitalization time, and less complications. Long-term effectiveness still needs further observation, and patients have to take antiplatelet drugs for long time after EVR.