You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 121 No. 10, October 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ORIGINAL ARTICLES
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Aortic Reconstruction vs Extra-anatomic Bypass and Angioplasty

Thoughts on Evolving a Protocol for Selection

T. J. Bunt, MD

Arch Surg. 1986;121(10):1166-1171.


Abstract

• One hundred forty-eight patients were evaluated for inflow revascularization and stratified by age, vascular anatomy, medical history, and cardiac functional class into aortic reconstruction (AR), extra-anatomic bypass (EAB), or iliac angioplasty based on a protocol that restricted AR to good-risk patients and liberalized indications for EAB. Fifty-five patients underwent AR with a 1.8% mortality, 1.8% myocardial infarction and 12% morbidity, and cumulative life-table patency of 94% at two years; 69 patients underwent EAB with no mortality and negligible morbidity; cumulative life-table patency was 93% at two years for crossover femoral and 83% at two years for axillofemoral grafts. Operative selection based on a protocol restricting AR to better-risk patients and liberalizing use of EAB may decrease overall patient mortality and morbidity without jeopardizing limb preservation.

(Arch Surg 1986;121:1166-1171)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Surgery, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, Columbia.


Footnotes

Accepted for publication April 4, 1986.

Reprint requests to Department of Surgery, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, 2 Richland Medical Park, Suite 402, Columbia, SC 29203 (Dr Bunt).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

A Comparative Evaluation of Femorofemoral Crossover Bypass and Iliofemoral Bypass for Unilateral Iliac Artery Occlusive Disease
Nazzal et al.
ANGIOLOGY 1998;49:259-265.
ABSTRACT  

Is Aortoprofunda Bypass a Successful Operation for Multilevel Occlusive Disease?
Kalman et al.
VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 1989;23:265-271.
ABSTRACT  

Iliofemoral Crossover Bypass in High-Risk Patients: Management and Results
Wandschneider et al.
VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 1989;23:8-14.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1986 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.