Purpose: To compare results of simple coverage vs preemptive embolization to exclude the internal iliac artery (IIA) during endovascular repair of aortoiliac aneurysms. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted by searching MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and OpenGray databases until March 2016. Primary outcome measures were safety and efficacy of the 2 strategies. Safety was determined by 30-day mortality and the minor and major complication rates. Efficacy was determined by absence of endoleak from the target IIA. Secondary outcomes of any endoleak, reintervention, operative time, fluoroscopy time, blood loss, contrast volume, and length of hospitalization were also examined. The random effects model was used to calculate combined overall effect sizes of pooled data. Data are presented as the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Forest plots and inconsistency (I2) statistics were used to evaluate the heterogeneity of the included studies. Results: Eight observational studies were included in the analysis. Overall, 284 and 255 subjects underwent IIA coverage or embolization, respectively. IIA coverage resulted in a significantly lower major complication rate (6% vs 29%; OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.46 to 6.04, p=0.003; I2=0%) and shorter hospitalization (MD 0.48 days, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.89, p=0.02; I2=0%), while differences in all other outcomes were not statistically significant. Conclusion: In the presence of limited data, available evidence suggests that simple coverage of the IIA may result in significantly fewer major complications compared to preemptive embolization; at the same time, the rates of endoleaks and/or reinterventions are similar between groups.