Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Intercondylar Route of Prosthetic Infragenicular Femoropopliteal Bypass Has Better Primary, Assisted, and Secondary Patency but Not Limb Salvage Rate Compared to the Medial Route

Tomas Grus, Lukas Lambert, Rohan Banerjee, Gabriela Grusova, Vilem Rohn, Tomas Vidim, Petr Mitas

. 2016 ; 2016 () : 1256414.

Language English Country United States

Document type Comparative Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Grant support
NV15-27941A MZ0 CEP Register

Aim. To compare the differences between medial and intercondylar infragenicular femoropopliteal prosthetic bypasses in terms of their midterm patency and limb salvage rates. Methods. Ninety-three consecutive patients with peripheral arterial disease who underwent a simple distal femoropopliteal bypass using a reinforced polytetrafluorethylene graft were included in this retrospective study. The bypass was constructed in the intercondylar route in 52 of the patients (group A) and in 41 in the medial route (group B). Results. Median observation time of the patients was 12.7 (IQR 4.6-18.5) months. There were 22 and 24 interventional or surgical procedures (angioplasty, stenting, thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or correction of the anastomosis) performed to restore patency of the reconstruction in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.14). The 20-month primary, assisted, and secondary patency rates and limb salvage rates were 57%, 57%, 81%, and 80% in group A compared to 21%, 23%, 55%, and 82% in group B (p = 0.0012, 0.0052, 0.022, and 0.44, resp.). Conclusion. Despite better primary, assisted, and secondary patency rates in patients with a prosthetic infragenicular femoropopliteal bypass embedded in the intercondylar fossa compared to patients with the medial approach, there is no benefit in terms of the limb salvage rate and the number of interventions required to maintain patency of the reconstruction.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc20016352
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240522140945.0
007      
ta
008      
201020s2016 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    0_
$a 10.1155/2016/1256414 $2 DOI
035    __
$a (Pubmed)27668252
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Grus, Tomáš, $d 1974- $7 xx0080427 $u Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Intercondylar Route of Prosthetic Infragenicular Femoropopliteal Bypass Has Better Primary, Assisted, and Secondary Patency but Not Limb Salvage Rate Compared to the Medial Route / $c Tomas Grus, Lukas Lambert, Rohan Banerjee, Gabriela Grusova, Vilem Rohn, Tomas Vidim, Petr Mitas
520    9_
$a Aim. To compare the differences between medial and intercondylar infragenicular femoropopliteal prosthetic bypasses in terms of their midterm patency and limb salvage rates. Methods. Ninety-three consecutive patients with peripheral arterial disease who underwent a simple distal femoropopliteal bypass using a reinforced polytetrafluorethylene graft were included in this retrospective study. The bypass was constructed in the intercondylar route in 52 of the patients (group A) and in 41 in the medial route (group B). Results. Median observation time of the patients was 12.7 (IQR 4.6-18.5) months. There were 22 and 24 interventional or surgical procedures (angioplasty, stenting, thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or correction of the anastomosis) performed to restore patency of the reconstruction in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.14). The 20-month primary, assisted, and secondary patency rates and limb salvage rates were 57%, 57%, 81%, and 80% in group A compared to 21%, 23%, 55%, and 82% in group B (p = 0.0012, 0.0052, 0.022, and 0.44, resp.). Conclusion. Despite better primary, assisted, and secondary patency rates in patients with a prosthetic infragenicular femoropopliteal bypass embedded in the intercondylar fossa compared to patients with the medial approach, there is no benefit in terms of the limb salvage rate and the number of interventions required to maintain patency of the reconstruction.
650    17
$a onemocnění periferních arterií $x chirurgie $7 D058729 $2 czmesh
650    _7
$a arteria femoralis $x chirurgie $7 D005263 $2 czmesh
650    _7
$a arteria poplitea $x chirurgie $7 D011150 $2 czmesh
650    17
$a výkony cévní chirurgie $x metody $7 D014656 $2 czmesh
650    _7
$a záchrana končetiny $7 D023821 $2 czmesh
650    _7
$a dolní končetina $x chirurgie $7 D035002 $2 czmesh
650    _7
$a zajištění kvality zdravotní péče $7 D011785 $2 czmesh
650    _7
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189 $2 czmesh
650    _7
$a lidé $7 D006801 $2 czmesh
655    _7
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160 $2 czmesh
655    _7
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485 $2 czmesh
700    1_
$a Lambert, Lukáš $7 xx0145830 $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Banerjee, Rohan $7 xx0224832 $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Grusová, Gabriela $7 xx0121713 $u Fourth Department of Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Rohn, Vilém, $d 1960- $7 xx0054482 $u Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Vidim, Tomáš $7 jx20080201021 $u Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mitáš, Petr $7 xx0158090 $u Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$t BioMed research international $x 2314-6141 $g Roč. 2016 (2016), s. 1256414 $w MED00182164
910    __
$a ABA008 $y 0 $z 0
990    __
$a 20201020095008 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240522140940 $b ABA008
999    __
$a kom $b bmc $g 1574371 $s 1106527
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2016 $b 2016 $d 1256414 $x MED00182164 $i 2314-6141 $m BioMed research international
GRA    __
$a NV15-27941A $p MZ0
LZP    __
$c NLK120 $d 20240520 $a 2020-grant

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...