Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Folgeeingriffe nach P1-Bypass im Stadium II

Reinterventions following above-knee bypass grafting in patients with claudication

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Gefässchirurgie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Ziel der Studie war der Vergleich von Art und Häufigkeit von Folgeeingriffen nach femoropoplitealer Bypassoperation in Abhängigkeit vom Transplantatmaterial.

Patienten und Methodik

In einer retrospektiven Studie wurde untersucht, wie häufig mit Folgeeingriffen nach einem P1-Bypass zu rechnen ist, wenn die Primäroperation im Stadium II mit PTFE (P1p) oder mit autologer Vene (P1v) erfolgt. 170 (P1p) und 211 (P1v) Bypässe wurden vergleichend analysiert. Folgeeingriffe an der ipsilateralen Gefäßachse wurden in verschiedenen Zeitintervallen (0–1 Monat, 2–12, 13–24, 25–36 Monate) separat dargestellt.

Ergebnisse

Die Häufigkeit von Revisionen und Nachoperationen unterschieden sich in beiden Gruppen innerhalb der ersten 30 Tage nach Bypassoperation nicht. In den folgenden Zeitintervallen wurden für den PTFE-Bypass wesentlich höhere Revisionsraten beobachtet. Gesamt zeigte sich zwischen 2 und 36 Monaten eine Interventionsrate von 31,7% für den PTFE-Bypass und 14,7% für den Venenbypass.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Ergebnisse lassen die primäre Verwendung von PTFE an Stelle der Vene für den P1-Bypass im Stadium II mehr als zweifelhaft erscheinen.

Abstract

Background

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the type and rate of further interventions following femoropopliteal bypass grafting, referred to whether autologous vein or PTFE was used.

Patients and methods

A retrospective study was performed to compare the rate of reintervention after implantation of an above-knee bypass graft for claudication. The graft material was PTFE in 170 limbs (P1lp group) and autogenous vein in 211 limbs (P1v group). All reinterventions on the ipsilateral limb axis were counted and are presented separately for different time intervals (0–1 month, 2–12, 13–24, 25–36 months).

Results

The groups did not differ in the rate of reintervention in the first month after the operation. After this, however, the reintervention rate was significantly higher for PTFE grafts. In total, between 2 and 36 months, the reintervention rates for limbs with PTFE grafts and vein grafts were 31.7% and 14.7%, respectively.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the primary use of PTFE grafts for above-knee bypass operations in patients with stage II claudication is questionable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. AbuRahma AF, Robinson PA, Holt SM (1999) Prospective controlled study of polytetrafluoroethylene versus saphenous vein in claudicant patients with bilateral above knee femoropopliteal bypasses. Surgery 126: 594–602

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Burger DH, Kappenstein AP, van Bock JH, Breslaud PJ (2000) A prospective randomized trial comparing vein with polytetrafluoroethylene in above-knee femoropopliteal bypass grafting. J Vasc Surg 32: 278–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Byrne J, Darling RC, Chang BB et al. (1999) Infrainguinal arterial reconstruction for claudication: Is it worth the risk? An analysis of 409 procedures. J Vasc Surg 29: 259–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hunink MGM, Wong JB, Donaldson MC et al. (1994) Patency results of percutaneous and surgical revascularisation for femoropopliteal arterial disease. Med Decis Making 14: 71–81

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jackson MR, Belott TP, Dickason T et al. (2000) The consequences of a failed femoropopliteal bypass grafting: comparison of saphenous vein and PTFE grafts. J Vasc Surg 32: 498–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnson WC, Lee KK (2000) A comparative evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene, umbilical vein, and saphenous vein bypass grafts for femoro-popliteal above-knee revascularisation: a prospective randomized Department of Veterans Affairs cooperative study. J Vasc Surg 32: 268–277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Klinkert P, Schepers A, Burger DH et al. (2003) Vein versus polytetrafluoroethylene in above-knee femoropopliteal bypass grafting: Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial. J Vasc Surg 37: 149–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lang W, Schmidt O, Radespiel-Tröger M, Schweiger H (2001) Der supragenuale PTFE-Bypass. Gefässchirurgie 6: S34–S40

  9. Michaels JA (1989) Choice of material for above-knee femoropopliteal bypass graft. Br J Surg 76: 7–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Poletti LF, Matsuura H, Dattilo JB et al. (1998) Should vein be saved for future operations? A 15-year review of infrainguinal bypasses and the subsequent need for autogenous vein. Ann Vasc Surg 12: 143–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stierli P, Eugster T, Hess P, Gürke L (2001) Verschluss der A. femoralis superficialis. Der autologe Venenbypass zur supragenualen A. poplitea. Gefässchirurgie 6: S43–S46

  12. Surowiec SM, Davies MG, Eberly SW et al. (2005) Percutaneous angioplasty and stenting of the superficial femoral artery. J Vasc Surg 41: 269–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. TASC Working Group (2000) Management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) Transatlantic Inter-Society Consensus (TASC). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 19: S1–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Veith FJ, Gupta SK, Ascer E et al. (1986) Six-year prospective multicenter randomized comparison of autologous saphenous vein and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in infrainguinal arterial reconstructions. J Vasc Surg 3: 104–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Es besteht kein Interessenkonflikt. Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen. Die Präsentation des Themas ist unabhängig und die Darstellung der Inhalte produktneutral.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Gefäßchirurgie, Herz- und Gefäß-Klinik, Salzburger Leite 1, 97616, Bad Neustadt, Deutschland

    H. Schweiger, J. Hofmann, P. Bernard, F. Binder & F. Woldrich

Authors
  1. H. Schweiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Hofmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Bernard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Binder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. Woldrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Schweiger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schweiger, H., Hofmann, J., Bernard, P. et al. Folgeeingriffe nach P1-Bypass im Stadium II. Gefässchirurgie 11, 423–428 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00772-006-0489-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00772-006-0489-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation