 |
|
New Concepts in the Use of Axillofemoral Bypass Grafts
Richard E. Ward, MD;
James W. Holcroft, MD;
Sebastian Conti, MD;
F. William Blaisdell, MD
Arch Surg. 1983;118(5):573-576.
Abstract
• Over a four-year period, 52 patients underwent axillofemoral bypass operations. Indications for operation were divided into three groups: those that were performed emergently (aortoenteric fistula, graft infection, and leaking aortic aneurysm), those performed electively for aneurysm, and those for ischemia. Operative procedures were categorized as follows: axillofemoral bypass alone, axillofemorofemoral bypass with the proximal femorofemoral anastomosis being graft to graft, or axillofemorofemoral bypass with the femorofemoral anastomosis to either a transected proximal common femoral artery or superficial femoral artery distal to the axillofemoral anastomosis. Thirty-three percent of the unilateral axillofemoral grafts failed, while only 14% of the axillobifemoral grafts failed. There was a further difference between the two methods of femorofemoral grafting with 22% failure in the former group but no failures in the latter.
(Arch Surg 1983;118:573-576)
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis, Sacramento.
Footnotes
Accepted for publication Jan 17, 1983.
Read before the 90th annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association, Kansas City, Mo, Nov 16, 1982.
Reprints not available.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
"The Cutting Edge": F. William Blaisdell, MD
Lim
Arch Surg 2000;135:890-894.
FULL TEXT
Aortic Reconstruction vs Extra-anatomic Bypass and Angioplasty: Thoughts on Evolving a Protocol for Selection
Bunt
Arch Surg 1986;121:1166-1171.
ABSTRACT
Axillofemoral Bypass: Expectations and Results
Savrin et al.
Arch Surg 1986;121:1016-1020.
ABSTRACT
|
