[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
August 1981

Dacron vs Vein for Femoropopliteal Arterial BypassShould the Saphenous Vein Be Spared?

Author Affiliations

From the Section of Surgery, Brown University, the Department of Surgery, The Miriam and Roger Williams General Hospitals, Providence; Memorial Hospital, Pawtucket; and Woonsocket Hospital, Woonsocket, RI.

Arch Surg. 1981;116(8):1037-1040. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1981.01380200045009
Abstract

• The increasing need for the saphenous vein to bypass lesions of the coronary and other small arteries prompts a reconsideration of its routine use for femoropopliteal bypass. Evaluation after five years in 124 consecutive patients (135 procedures) demonstrated no significant difference in overall definitive patency between venous grafts (63%) and Dacron prostheses (65%). Dacron prostheses were avoided when below-knee anastomoses were required, but when the distal anastomoses were made above the knee, the five-year patency for veins and Dacron was equal (67%). Although the quality of the distal runoff influenced the long-term patency, effects were similar for veins and for Dacron. The data support the use of Dacron prostheses for femoropopliteal bypass proximal to the knee joint, allowing preservation of the saphenous vein for possible use elsewhere.

(Arch Surg 1981;116:1037-1040)

References
1.
DeWeese JA, Rob CG:  Autogenous venous bypass grafts ten years later . Surgery 1977;82:775-784.
2.
Szilagyi DE, Hageman JY, Smith, RF, et al:  Autogenous vein grafting in femoropopliteal atherosclerosis: The limit of its effectiveness . Surgery 1979;86:836-851.
3.
Darling RG, Linton RR, Razzuk MA:  Saphenous vein bypass grafts for femoropopliteal occlusive disease: A reappraisal . Surgery 1967;61:31-41.
4.
Crawford ES, DeBakey ME, Morris GC, et al:  Evaluation of late failures after reconstructive operations for occlusive lesions of the aortic and iliac, femoral, and popliteal arteries . Surgery 1960;47:79-100.
5.
Edwards WS:  Late occlusion of femoral and popliteal fabric arterial grafts . Surg Gynecol Obstet 1960;110:714-718.
6.
Reichle FA:  Criteria for evaluation of new arterial prostheses by comparing vein with Dacron femoropopliteal bypasses . Surg Gynecol Obstet 1978;146:714-720.
7.
Szilagyi DE, Smith RF, Elliott JP, et al:  Long-term behavior of a Dacron arterial substitute . Ann Surg 1965;162:453-476.Article
8.
Harmon JW, Hoar CS Jr:  Cloth femoral-popliteal bypass grafts in 29 diabetic patients . Arch Surg 1973;106:282-285.Article
9.
Sabga, GA; Ferrato, PJ; and Young, WV:  Comparison of the long-term and short-term result of saphenous vein bypass grafts with distal attachment above and below the knee . Vasc Surg 1968;2:135-148.Article
10.
Ray FS, Lape CP, Lutes CA, et al:  Femoropopliteal saphenous vein bypass graft: Analysis of 150 cases . Am J Surg 1970;119:385-391.Article
11.
DeWeese JA, Rob CG:  Autogenous venous bypass grafts five years later . Ann Surg 1971;174:346-356.Article
12.
Stipa S, Wheelock FC:  A comparison of a femoral artery graft in diabetic and nondiabetic patients . Am J Surg 1971;121:223-228.Article
13.
Buda JA, Weber CJ, McAllister FF, et al:  Factors influencing patency of femoropopliteal artery bypass grafts . Am J Surg 1976;132:8-12.Article
14.
Yashar JJ, Weyman AK, Burnard RJ, et al:  Survival and limb salvage in patients with infected arterial prostheses . Am J Surg 1978;135:499.Article
×