Femoropopliteal bypass for claudication: Vein vs. PTFE

Annals of Vascular Surgery

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 178-185

  Allen, Brent T ^a,b   Reilly, Jeffrey M ^a   Rubin, Brian G ^a   Thompson, Robert W ^a   Anderson, Charles B ^a   Flye, M Wayne ^a   Sicard, Gregorio A ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Queeny Tower ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; FEMALE; FEMOROPOPLITEAL BYPASS; GRAFT PATENCY; HUMAN; INTERMITTENT CLAUDICATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAPHENOUS VEIN; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0029881439     PISSN: 08905096     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02000763     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Veith FJ, Gupta SK, Ascer E, et al. Six-year prospective multicenter randomized comparison of autologous saphenous vein and expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in infrainguinal arterial reconstructions. J Vasc Surg 1986;3: 104-114.
2. McDaniel MD, Cronenwett JL. Basic data related to the natural history of intermittent claudication. Ann Vasc Surg 1989;3:273-277.
3. Hiatt WR, Wolfel EE, Meier RH. Superiority of treadmill walking exercise versus strength training for patients with peripheral arterial disease. Implications for the mechanism of the training response. Circulation 1994;90:1866-1874.
4. Zierler RE, Fry PD, Reid I. Revascularization of the leg using polytetrafluoroethylene: Cumulative patency in patients with claudication and limb salvage. Am J Surg 1982;143:549-553.
5. John TG, Stonebridge PA, Kelman J, et al. Above-knee femoropopliteal bypass grafts and the consequences of graft failure. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993;75:257-260.
6. Berlakovich GA, Herbst F, Mittlböck M, et al. The choice of material for above-knee femoropopliteal bypass. A 20-year experience. Arch Surg 1994;129:297-302.
7. Archie JP Jr. Femoropopliteal bypass with either adequate ipsilateral reversed saphenous vein or obligatory polytetrafluoroethylene. Ann Vasc Surg 1994;8:475-484.
8. Quiñones-Baldrich WJ, Busuttil RW, Baker JD, et al. Is the preferential use of polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for femoropopliteal bypass justified? J Vasc Surg 1988;8:219-228.
9. Calligaro KD, Friedell ML, Rollins DL, et al. A comparative review of in situ versus reversed vein grafts in the 1980s. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991;172:247-252.
10. Bandyk DF, Schmitt DD, Seabrook GR, et al. Monitoring functional patency of in situ saphenous vein bypasses: The impact of a surveillance protocol and elective revision. J Vasc Surg 1989;9:286-296.
11. Lundell A, Lindblad B, Bergqvist D, et al. Femoropoplitealcrural graft patency is improved by an intensive surveillance program: A prospective randomized study. J Vasc Surg 1995; 21:26-34.
12. Belkin M, Conte MS, Donaldson MC, et al. Preferred strategies for secondary infrainguinal bypass: Lessons learned from 300 consecutive reoperations. J Vasc Surg 1995;21:282-295.
13. Anderson CB, Stevens SL, Allen BT, et al. In situ saphenous vein for lower extremity revascularization. Surgery 1992;112: 6-10.