Advertisement

European Surgery

, Volume 46, Issue 6, pp 260–266 | Cite as

The all autologous vein policy in infrainguinal bypass surgery

  • Th. HölzenbeinEmail author
  • M. Aspalter
  • P. Metzger
  • F. Enzmann
  • W. Dabernig
  • K. Linni
Main Topic
  • 110 Downloads

Summary

Background

Femorodistal vein bypass is regarded as gold standard for the treatment of limb threatening ischemia. Initially the procedure has been reported using saphenous vein (Rev Chir 70:206–35, 1951), mainly due to the lack of adequate vascular substitutes. Later vascular grafts have become available, and the enthusiasm to use autologous vein has faded, especially in difficult situations with no saphenous vein, although it is known that vein grafts perform superior to alloplastic vascular grafts.

Methods

A variety of methods gathered from literature have been collected and proven for their usefulness in everyday practice by the authors. We have a long-standing experience with femorodistal vein bypass using exclusively autologous vein allowing to critically evaluate current opinions on this topic.

Results

The availability and technique of vein harvest of alternative vein for distal bypass is discussed, as well as the sequence of vein use, which is discussed in literature. Measures to increase vein availability, vein quality assessment, and methods for prevention of vein exhaustion are described.

Conclusions

More of 90 % of femorodistal bypass procedures can be accomplished with a vein graft even today. This requires a combination of dedication to bypass surgery, careful search for adequate vein, meticulous vein harvest, and attentive care to use vein resourced sensibly.

Keywords

Distal bypass surgery Greater saphenous vein Arm veins Lesser saphenous vein Autologous vein policy 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no actual or potential conflicts of interest in relation to this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Kunlin J. Le traitement de l’ischemie arteritique par la greffe veneuse longue. Rev Chir. 1951;70:206–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albers M, Romiti M, Brochado-Neto FC, Pereira CA. Meta-analysis of alternate autologous vein bypass grafts to infrapopliteal arteries. J Vasc Surg. 2005;42:449–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lösel-Sadée H, Alefelder C. Heparin-bonded expanded polytetrafluoroethylene graft for infragenicular bypass: five-year results. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;50:339–43.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kreienberg PB, Darling, RC, Chang BB, Champagne BJ, Paty PS, Roddy SP, Lloyd WE, Ozsvath KJ, Shah DM. Early results of a prospective randomized trial of spliced vein versus polytetrafluoroethylene graft with a distal vein cuff for limb-threatening ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:299–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faries PL, LoGerfo FW, Arora S, Hook S, Pulling MC, Akbari CM, Campbell DR, Pomposelli FB. A comparative study of alternative conduits for lower extremity revascularization: all-autogenous conduit versus prosthetic grafts. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:1080–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor L, Edwards JM, Porter JM. Present status of reversed vein bypass grafting: five-year results of a modern series. J Vasc Surg. 1990;11:193–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kent KC, Whittemore AD, Mannick JA. Short-term and midterm results of an all-autogenous tissue policy for infrainguinal reconstruction. J Vasc Surg. 1989;9:107–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chew DK, Owend CD, Belkin M, Donaldson MC, Whittemore AD, Mannick JA, Conte MS. Bypass in the absence of ipsilateral greater saphenous vein: safety and superiority of the contralateral greater saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:1085–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chang BB, Paty PS, Shah DM, Leather RP. The lesser saphenous vein: an underappreciated source of autogenous vein. J Vasc Surg. 1992;15:152–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulman ML, Badhey MS, Yatco R, Pillary G. A saphenous alternative: preferential use of superficial femoral and popliteal veins as femoropopliteal bypass grafts. Am J Surg. 1986;152:231–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulman ML, Badhey MS, Yatco R, Pillary G. An 11-year experience with deep leg veins as femoropopliteal bypass grafts. Arch Surg. 1986;121:1010–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hölzenbein TJ, Pomposelli FB, Miller A, Contreras MA, Gibbons GW, Campbell DR, Freeman DV, LoGerfo FW. Results of a policy with arm veins used as the first alternative to an unavailable ipsilateral greater saphenous vein for infrainguinal bypass. J Vasc Surg. 1996;23:130–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hölzenbein TJ, Pomposelli FB, Miller A, Gibbons GW, Campbell DR, Freeman DV, LoGerfo FW. The upper arm basilic-cephalic loop for distal bypass grafting: technical considerations and follow-up. J Vasc Surg. 1995;21:586–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jacob S, Kallikourdis A, El-Shafei H, Dunning J. What is the patency of the short saphenous vein when used for coronary artery bypass grafting. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2007;6:783–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Licht P, Jacobsen E, Lerbjerg G, Andersen PE, Alstrup P. Cephalic vein in coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1996;10:327–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stansby G. Vein quality in vascular surgery. Lancet. 1998;351:1001–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luckraz H, Lowe J, Pugh N, Azzu AA. Pre-operative long saphenous vein mapping predicts vein anatomy and quality leading to improved post-operative leg morbidity. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2008;7:188–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linni K, Mader N, Aspalter M, Butturini E, Ugurluoglu A, Hitzl W, Hölzenbein TJ. Ultrasonic vein mapping prior to infrainguinal autogenous bypass grafting reduces postoperative major surgical site infections and readmissions. J Vasc Surg. 2012;56:126–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marcaccio EJ, Miller A, Tannenbaum GA, Lavin PT, Gibbons GW, Pomposelli FB, Freeman DV, Campbell DR, LoGerfo FW. Angioscopically directed interventions improve arm vein bypass grafts. J Vasc Surg. 1993;17:994–1004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller A, Marcaccio EJ, Tannenbaum GA, Kwolek CJ, Stonebridge PA, Lavin PT, Gibbons GW, Pomposelli FB, Freeman DV, Campbell DR, LoGerfo FB. Comparison of angioscopy and angiograpy for monitoring infrainguinal bypass vein grafts: result of a prospective randomized trial. J Vasc Surg. 1993;17:382–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hölzenbein TJ, Miller A, Tannenbaum GA, Contreras MA, Lavin PT, Gibbons GW, Campbell DR, Freeman DV, LoGerfo FW. Role of angioscopy for the failing or failed infrainguinal vein bypass graft. Ann Vasc Surg. 1994;8:74–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mills JL, Taylor SM, Fujitani RM. The role of the deep femoral artery as an inflow site for infrainguinal revascularization. J Vasc Surg. 1993;18:416–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Natale A, Belcasto M, Pallesci A, Baldi I. The mid-distal deep femoral artery: few important centimeters in vascular surgery. Ann Vasc Surg. 2007;21:111–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reed AB, Conte MS, Belkin M, Mannick JA, Whittemore AD, Donaldson MC. Usefulness of autogenous bypass grafts originating distal to the groin. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35:48–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schanzer A, Owens CD, Conte MS, Belkin M. Superficial femoral artery percutaneous intervention is an effective strategy to optimize inflow for distal origin bypass grafts. J Vasc Surg. 2007;45:740–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Böhmig HJ, Zeidler G, Schwierz T, Loy E. 20 Jahre orthograder Venenbypass für infrainguinale arterielle Rekonstruktionen. Chirurg. 1995;66:120–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crawford RS, Chung TK, Hodgman T, Pedraza JD, Corej M, Cambria RP. Restenosis after eversion vs patch closure carotid endarterectomy. J Vasc Surg. 2007;46:41–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kretschmer G, Hölzenbein TJ. Oral anticoagulation in peripheral vascular surgery: how intense, for how long, or at all? J Intern Med. 1999;245:389–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Becquemin JP. Effect of ticlopidine on the long-term patency of saphenous-vein bypass grafts in the legs Etude de la Ticlopidine aprés Pontage Fémoro-Poplité and the Association Universitaire de Recherche en Chirurgie. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1726–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Algra A, Tangelder MJ, Lawson JA, Eikelboom BC. Interpretation of the Dutch BOA trial: Dutch bypass oral anticoagulants or aspirin study group. Lancet. 2000;355:1186–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Londrey GL, Bosher LP, Stoneburner FD, Pancoast JW, Davis RK. Infrainguinal reconstruction with arm vein, lesser saphenous vein and remnants of greater saphenous vein: a report of 257 cases. J Vasc Surg. 1994;20:451–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Davies AH, Hawdon AJ, Sydes MR, Thompson SG, et al. Is duplex surveillance of value after leg vein bypass grafting? Principal results of the vein graft surveillance randomized trial (VGST). Circulation. 2005;112:1985–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sesto ME, Sullivan TM, Hertzer NR, Krajewski LP, OʼHara PJ, Beven EG. Cephalic vein grafts for lower extremity revascularization. J Vasc Surg. 1992;15:543–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deutsch M, Meinhart J, Howanietz N, Fröschl A, Heine B, Sisel A, Stümpflen A, Zilla P. The bridge graft: a new concept for infraopopliteal surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovas Surg. 2001;21:508–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Th. Hölzenbein
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. Aspalter
    • 1
  • P. Metzger
    • 1
  • F. Enzmann
    • 1
  • W. Dabernig
    • 1
  • K. Linni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department for Vascular and Endovascular SurgeryPMU SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations