These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Comparison of in-situ and reversed saphenous vein grafts for infrageniculate bypass. Author: Ricci MA, Graham AM, Symes JF. Journal: Can J Surg; 1990 Jun; 33(3):216-20. PubMed ID: 2350745. Abstract: Current controversy surrounding in-situ and reversed saphenous vein grafts prompted a review of 161 procedures performed between 1982 and 1987. Analysis was based on objective criteria recommended by the Society for Vascular Surgery/International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery (SVS/ISCVS) Committee on Reporting Standards. There were 92 in-situ bypasses, 42 to the popliteal artery below the knee, and 50 to tibial vessels; of 69 reversed vein grafts, the comparable figures were 51 and 18. Sixty-seven in-situ and 43 reversed grafts were done for foot salvage. The overall primary patency rate for in-situ grafts was 81.1% at 30 days, 77.0% at 1 year, 74.7% at 3 years and 59.8% at 5 years; corresponding reversed vein patency rates were 85.2%, 76.8%, 67.0% and 42.3%. Patency rates for foot salvage for in-situ grafts were 81.7% at 1 month, 75.9% at 1 year and 72.6% at 3 years, and for reversed vein grafts 78.6%, 70.3% and 66.5%. Secondary patency rates were 72.8% at 3 years for in-situ vein and 67.2% for reversed vein; the foot-salvage rate at 3 years was 91.0% with in-situ vein and 78.9% with reversed vein. The study demonstrated no statistically significant difference between in-situ and reversed saphenous vein bypass for infrageniculate reconstruction, regardless of the distal anastomotic site or severity of disease. Although a trend favouring the in-situ technique was noted, particularly at the tibial level, longer follow-up and a prospective randomized trial is needed to evaluate this.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]