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  • Citing articles on Web of Science (36)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group 141

Arch Surg. 1988;123(4):434-438.

Abstract
• In 1983, the Veterans Administration initiated a cooperative study in 18 medical centers to perform a prospective comparative evaluation of vascular grafts. Five hundred ninety-six patients have had femoropopliteal below-knee or femorotibial-peroneal (polytetrafluoroethylene, umbilical vein, in situ, or reversed saphenous vein) bypasses. Patency evaluation at two years revealed that for femoropopliteal below-knee reconstruction, the vein patency (76%) was better than prosthetic patency (64%). For femorotibial-peroneal reconstructions, the two-year patency for vein bypasses (73%) was significantly better than for prosthetic bypass grafts (30%). In general, the site of the distal anastomosis did not affect vein patency, but, with prosthetic bypasses, patency at two years progressively decreased with a more distal anastomosis. In situ and reversed saphenous vein bypasses had similar two-year patency for both femoropopliteal below-knee and femorotibial reconstructions.

(Arch Surg 1988;123:434-438)

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Sept 30, 1987.

A complete listing of the participating authors appears at the end of this article.

Read before the Association of Veterans Administration Surgeons, Portland, Ore, May 8, 1987.

Reprint requests to Department of Vascular Surgery (112), Veterans Administration Medical Center, 150 S Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02131 (Willard C. Johnson, MD).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Popliteal-to-Distal Bypass: Identifying Risk Factors Associated with Limb Loss and Graft Failure
Galaria et al.
VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 2005;39:393-400.
ABSTRACT  

An Overview of Variance Inflation Factors for Sample-Size Calculation
Hsieh et al.
Eval Health Prof 2003;26:239-257.
ABSTRACT  

Development of a hybrid cardiovascular graft using a tissue engineering approach
TIWARI et al.
FASEB J. 2002;16:791-796.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Polymeric Sealant Inhibits Anastomotic Suture Hole Bleeding More Rapidly Than Gelfoam/Thrombin: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Glickman et al.
Arch Surg 2002;137:326-331.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of the Resistive Properties of Reversed and Nonreversed Saphenous Veins at Arterial Pressure and Flow: Implications for Optimal Graft Configuration
Moawad et al.
VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 1998;32:559-568.
ABSTRACT  

In-Situ vs Reversed Vein Grafts: Is There a Difference?
Mills
VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 1997;31:679-684.
 

Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Arterial Insufficiency of the Lower Extremities: A Critical Review
Weitz et al.
Circulation 1996;94:3026-3049.
FULL TEXT  

Current Recommendations for Femoropopliteal Bypass Grafts
Porter and Gentile
PERSPECT VASC SURG ENDOVASC THER 1993;6:129-133.
 

The Diabetic Foot
Gibbons et al.
PERSPECT VASC SURG ENDOVASC THER 1991;4:52-63.
 

Femoral-Infrapopliteal Polytetrafluoroethylene Graft Bypass for Limb Salvage
Schroeder et al.
PERSPECT VASC SURG ENDOVASC THER 1991;4:65-86.
 

Current Status of Extracoronary Endovascular Procedures
Dalman et al.
PERSPECT VASC SURG ENDOVASC THER 1990;3:1-24.
 

Reversed vs. In Situ: Is Either the Technique of Choice for Lower Extremity Vein Bypass?
Taylor and Porter
PERSPECT VASC SURG ENDOVASC THER 1988;1:35-55.