This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

C. DEL CAMPO, MD, FRCS(C)
Halifax, Nova Scotia

Arch Surg. 1985;120(9):1088-1089.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—The article by Quiñones-Baldrich and colleagues¹ was brought to my attention, shortly after publication, by the sales representative of one of the companies distributing polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in our area. He was using this article as the basis for his rationale in trying to convince me to abandon my usual policy of using autogenous saphenous vein for femoropopliteal bypasses. "As shown here, PTFE grafts should be selected as the first choice arterial substitute" was his opening line. This article may be appealing at first glance, but careful evaluation discloses several significant deficiencies.

Over a period of four years, the authors performed 142 femoropopliteal revascularizations using polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. Only 63 of these patients were included in the study, they were not randomized, and their follow-up time periods clearly show that they were not consecutive cases either. The only explanation given for their selection was that the decision to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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