Comparison of Contralateral vs Ipsilateral Vein Graft for Traumatic Vascular Injury Repair: A Cohort From PROOVIT.

The American Surgeon Pub Date : 2024-04-15 DOI:10.1177/00031348241246167

Noreen Siddiqi, Danny T. Lammers, Parker Hu, David Stonko, Joseph Dubose, Stuart Hurst, Zain Hashmi, Jonathan Morrison, Richard Betzold

{"title":"Comparison of Contralateral vs Ipsilateral Vein Graft for Traumatic Vascular Injury Repair: A Cohort From PROOVIT.","authors":"Noreen Siddiqi, Danny T. Lammers, Parker Hu, David Stonko, Joseph Dubose, Stuart Hurst, Zain Hashmi, Jonathan Morrison, Richard Betzold","doi":"10.1177/00031348241246167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traumatic injury leading to arterial damage has traditionally been repaired using autologous vein graft from the contralateral limb. This often requires a secondary surgical site and the potential of prolonged operative time for patients. We sought to assess the use of ipsilateral vs contralateral vein grafts in patients who experienced traumatic extremity vascular injury. A multicenter database was queried to identify arterial injuries requiring operative intervention with vein grafting. The primary outcome of interest was need for operative reintervention. Secondary outcomes included risk of thrombosis, infection, and intensive care unit length of stay. 358 patients (320 contralateral and 38 ipsilateral) were included in the analysis. The ipsilateral vein cohort did not display a statistically significant decrease in need for reoperation when compared to the contralateral group (11% vs 23%; OR 0.41, 95% CI -0.07-1.3; P = .14). Contralateral repair was associated with longer median intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (4.3 vs 3.1 days; P < .01).","PeriodicalId":325363,"journal":{"name":"The American Surgeon","volume":"58 11","pages":"31348241246167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348241246167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Traumatic injury leading to arterial damage has traditionally been repaired using autologous vein graft from the contralateral limb. This often requires a secondary surgical site and the potential of prolonged operative time for patients. We sought to assess the use of ipsilateral vs contralateral vein grafts in patients who experienced traumatic extremity vascular injury. A multicenter database was queried to identify arterial injuries requiring operative intervention with vein grafting. The primary outcome of interest was need for operative reintervention. Secondary outcomes included risk of thrombosis, infection, and intensive care unit length of stay. 358 patients (320 contralateral and 38 ipsilateral) were included in the analysis. The ipsilateral vein cohort did not display a statistically significant decrease in need for reoperation when compared to the contralateral group (11% vs 23%; OR 0.41, 95% CI -0.07-1.3; P = .14). Contralateral repair was associated with longer median intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (4.3 vs 3.1 days; P < .01).

查看原文本刊更多论文

创伤性血管损伤修复中对侧静脉移植与同侧静脉移植的比较：来自 PROOVIT 的队列

传统上，导致动脉损伤的外伤都是通过对侧肢体的自体静脉移植来修复的。这通常需要一个辅助手术部位，并可能延长患者的手术时间。我们试图对四肢创伤性血管损伤患者使用同侧与对侧静脉移植的情况进行评估。我们查询了一个多中心数据库，以确定需要进行静脉移植手术干预的动脉损伤。主要研究结果是是否需要再次进行手术干预。次要结果包括血栓形成风险、感染和重症监护室住院时间。358名患者（320名对侧患者和38名同侧患者）被纳入分析。与同侧静脉组相比，同侧静脉组再次手术的需求并没有出现统计学意义上的显著下降（11% vs 23%; OR 0.41, 95% CI -0.07-1.3; P = .14）。对侧修复与较长的重症监护室 (ICU) 中位住院时间有关（4.3 天 vs 3.1 天；P < .01）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

The American Surgeon

自引率

0.00%

发文量