The Results of Femorofemoral Bypass Using a Saphenous Vein Graft as an Alternative to PTFE Grafts.

IF 0.8 Q4 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Gibeom Kwon, Ki Hyuk Park, Sang Gyu Kwak, Jaehoon Lee
{"title":"The Results of Femorofemoral Bypass Using a Saphenous Vein Graft as an Alternative to PTFE Grafts.","authors":"Gibeom Kwon,&nbsp;Ki Hyuk Park,&nbsp;Sang Gyu Kwak,&nbsp;Jaehoon Lee","doi":"10.5758/vsi.220060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aimed to report the results of femorofemoral bypass (FFB) using a great saphenous vein (GSV) graft as an alternative to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>From January 2012 to December 2021, 168 patients who underwent FFB (PTFE, 143; GSV, 25) were included. The patients' demographic features and surgical intervention results were retrospectively reviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no intergroup differences in patients' demographic features. In GSV vs. PTFE grafts, the superficial femoral artery provided statistically significant inflow and outflow (P<0.001 for both), and redo bypass was more common (P=0.021). The mean follow-up duration was 24.7±2.3 months. The primary patency rates at 3 and 5 years were 84% and 74% for PTFE grafts and 82% and 70% for GSV grafts, respectively. There was no significant intergroup difference in primary patency (P=0.661) or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR)-free survival (P=0.758). Clinical characteristics, disease details, and procedures were analyzed as risk factors for graft occlusion. Multivariate analysis revealed that none of the factors was associated with an increased risk of FFB graft occlusion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>FFB using PTFE or GSV grafts is a useful method with an approximately 70% 5-year primary patency rate. The GSV and PTFE grafts showed no difference in primary patency or CD-TLR-free survival during follow-up; however, FFB using GSV may be an option in selective situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":52311,"journal":{"name":"Vascular Specialist International","volume":"39 ","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3a/42/vsi-39-7.PMC10064113.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vascular Specialist International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5758/vsi.220060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to report the results of femorofemoral bypass (FFB) using a great saphenous vein (GSV) graft as an alternative to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts.

Materials and methods: From January 2012 to December 2021, 168 patients who underwent FFB (PTFE, 143; GSV, 25) were included. The patients' demographic features and surgical intervention results were retrospectively reviewed.

Results: There were no intergroup differences in patients' demographic features. In GSV vs. PTFE grafts, the superficial femoral artery provided statistically significant inflow and outflow (P<0.001 for both), and redo bypass was more common (P=0.021). The mean follow-up duration was 24.7±2.3 months. The primary patency rates at 3 and 5 years were 84% and 74% for PTFE grafts and 82% and 70% for GSV grafts, respectively. There was no significant intergroup difference in primary patency (P=0.661) or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR)-free survival (P=0.758). Clinical characteristics, disease details, and procedures were analyzed as risk factors for graft occlusion. Multivariate analysis revealed that none of the factors was associated with an increased risk of FFB graft occlusion.

Conclusion: FFB using PTFE or GSV grafts is a useful method with an approximately 70% 5-year primary patency rate. The GSV and PTFE grafts showed no difference in primary patency or CD-TLR-free survival during follow-up; however, FFB using GSV may be an option in selective situations.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

用隐静脉移植物替代聚四氟乙烯移植物进行股股分流的结果。
目的:本研究旨在报道大隐静脉(GSV)移植物替代聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)移植物的股股分流术(FFB)的结果。材料与方法:2012年1月至2021年12月,168例患者行FFB (PTFE, 143例;包括GSV, 25)。回顾性分析患者的人口学特征和手术治疗结果。结果:两组间患者人口学特征无差异。在GSV与PTFE移植物中,股浅动脉的流入和流出具有统计学意义(p结论:使用PTFE或GSV移植物的FFB是一种有用的方法,5年初级通畅率约为70%。随访期间,GSV和PTFE在原发性通畅和无cd - tlr生存方面无差异;然而,在选择性情况下,使用GSV的FFB可能是一种选择。
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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
29
审稿时长
17 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信