[Skip to Content]
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
October 1986

Totally Autogenous Venovenous Composite Bypass GraftsSalvage of the Almost Irretrievable Extremity

Author Affiliations

From St Joseph Medical Center, Burbank, Calif.

Arch Surg. 1986;121(10):1128-1132. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1986.01400100034006
Abstract

• When a suitable single length of saphenous or arm vein is unavailable, the elderly patient with a profoundly ischemic extremity, poor runoff, and a distal outflow vessel frequently undergoes amputation. Rather than performing primary amputation or resorting to nonautogenous conduits, we used 21 different combinations of available vein segments of ipsilateral or contralateral greater saphenous, lesser saphenous, cephalic, and basilic veins as composite autogenous bypass grafts. Fifty-four extremities, of which 21 (39%) had one or more failed previous bypasses, were revascularized. Tissue necrosis necessitated operation in 74% (40 instances) and rest pain in 19% (ten instances). All grafts extended below the knee, 22% (12 grafts) to the infrageniculate popliteal artery, 78% (42 grafts) to an infrapopliteal runoff vessel, and 28% (15 grafts) to the ankle or foot. The patency rate at one month was 81%. Thrombectomy alone or with local graft repair increased the one-month patency rate to 96%. At one year, the patency and limb salvage rates were 74% and 82%, respectively.

(Arch Surg 1986;121:1128-1132)

References
1.
Leather RP, Shah DM, Karmody AM:  Infrapopliteal arterial bypass for limb salvage: Increased patency and utilization of the saphenous vein used 'in-situ.' Surgery 1981;90:1000-1008.
2.
Harris RW, Andros G, Dulawa LB, et al:  Successful long-term limb salvage using cephalic vein bypass grafts . Ann Surg 1984;200:785-792.Article
3.
Andros G, Harris RW, Dulawa LB, et al:  The use of arm veins as lower-extremity arterial conduits , in Kempczinski RF (ed): The Ischemic Leg . Chicago, Year Book Medical Publishers Inc, 1985, pp 419-436.
4.
Veith FJ, Gupta SK, Ascer E, et al:  Six-year prospective multicenter randomized comparison of autologous saphenous vein and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in infrainguinal arterial reconstructions . J Vasc Surg 1986;3:104-114.Article
5.
Dardik H, Baier RE, Meenagham M, et al:  Morphologic and biophysical assessment of long-term human umbilical cord vein implants used as vascular conduits . Surg Gynecol Obstet 1982;154:17-26.
6.
Callow AD:  Current status of vascular grafts . Surg Clin North Am 1982;62:501-513.
7.
Andros G, Harris RW, Dulawa LB, et al:  The use of the cephalic vein as a conduit , in Greenhalgh RM (ed): Vascular Surgical Techniques . Woburn, Mass, Butterworths, 1984, pp 169-176.
8.
Harris RW, Andros G, Dulawa LB, et al:  The transition to 'in-situ' vein bypass grafts . Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;163:21-28.
9.
Rutherford RB:  The need for standardized practices in reporting the results of arterial reconstructive surgery , in Burgan JJ, Yao JSG (eds): Reoperative Arterial Surgery . New York, Grune & Stratton, 1986, pp 15-30.
10.
Malone JM, Goldstone J:  Lower extremity amputation , in Moore WS (ed): Vascular Surgery: A Comprehensive Review . New York, Grune & Stratton, 1983, pp 909-994.
11.
Salles-Cunha SX, Andros G, Harris RW, et al:  Preoperative noninvasive assessment of arm veins to be used as bypass grafts in the lower extremities . J Vasc Surg 1986;3:813-816.Article
12.
Veith FJ, Gupta SK, Samson RH, et al:  Superficial femoral and popliteal arteries as inflow sites for distal bypasses . Surgery 1981;90: 980-990.
13.
Graham JW, Lusby RJ:  Infrapopliteal bypass grafting: Use of upper limb vein alone and in autogenous composite grafts . Surgery 1982;91: 646-649.
14.
Auer AI, Hurley JJ, Binnington B, et al:  Distal tibial vein grafts for limb salvage . Arch Surg 1983;118:597-602.Article
×