Mechanics of end-to-end artery-to-PTFE graft anastomoses

Annals of Vascular Surgery

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 317-323

  Dobrin, Philip B ^a,c   Mirande, Raul ^b   Kang, Steven ^b   Dong, Quan Sheng ^b   Mrkvicka, Robert ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b LOYOLA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

POLITEF; POLYBUTESTER; POLYPROPYLENE;

ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTERY COMPLIANCE; ARTICLE; CAROTID ARTERY; CONTROLLED STUDY; END TO END ANASTOMOSIS; NONHUMAN; POLITEF IMPLANT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SUTURING METHOD; SWINE;

EID: 0031818179     PISSN: 08905096     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s100169900161     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Sanders RJ, Kempczinski RF, Hammond W, et al. The significance of graft diameter. Surgery 1980;88:856-866.
2. Schmitz EJ, Kanar EA, Sauvage LR, et al. The influence of diameter disproportion and of length on the incidence of complications in autogenous venous grafts in the abdominal aorta. Surgery 1953;33:190-206.
3. Edwards WS, Holdefer WF, Mohtashemi M. The importance of proper caliber of lumen in femoral-popliteal artery reconstruction. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1966;122:1-4.
4. 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.
5. Gupta SK, Veith FJ. Three year experience with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene arterial grafts for limb salvage. Am J Surg 1980;140:214-217.
6. Schneider JR, Zwolak RM, Walsh DB, et al. Lack of diameter effect on short-term patency of size-matched Dacron aortobifemoral grafts. J Vasc Surg 1991;13:785-791.
7. Schneider JR, Besso SR, Walsh DB, et al. Femorofemoral versus aortobifemoral bypass: Outcome and hemodynamic results. J Vasc Surg 1994;19:43-57.
8. Strandness DE, Sumner DS. Hemodynamics for Surgeons. New York: Grune & Stratton, Inc., 1975, pp 343-346.
9. Barnes RW. Hemodynamics for the vascular surgeon. Arch Surg 1980;115:216-223.
10. Klein SR, Goldberg L, Miranda R, et al. Effect of suture technique on arterial anastomotic compliance. Arch Surg 1982; 117:45-47.
11. Baumgartner N, Dobrin PB, Morasch M, et al. Influence of suture technique and suture material selection of the mechanics of end-to-end and end-to-side anastomoses. J Thor Cardiovasc Surg 1996;111:1063-1072.
12. Morasch MD, Dobrin PB, Dong Q-S, et al. Mechanics of spatulated end-to-end artery-to-vein anastomoses. Ann Vasc Surg 1998;12:55-59.
13. Kidson IG, Abbott WM. Low compliance and arterial graft occlusion. Circulation 1978;58(suppl I):1-4.
14. Kinley CE, Marble AE. Compliance. A continuing problem with vascular grafts. J Cardiovasc Surg 1980;4:163-170.
15. Walden R, L'Italien GJ, Megerman J, et al. Matched elastic properties and successful arterial grafting. Arch Surg 1980; 115:1166-1169.
16. Bossiouny HS, White S, Glagov S, et al. Anastomotic intimal hyperplasia. Mechanical injury or flow induced. J Vasc Surg 1992;15:708-717.
17. Okuhn SP, Connelly DP, Calakas N, et al. Does compliance mismatch alone cause neointimal hyperplasia? J Vasc Surg 1989;9:35-45.
18. Wu M H-D, Shi Q, Sauvage LR, et al. The direct effect of graft compliance mismatch per se on development of host arterial intimai hyperplasia at the anastomotic interface. Ann Vasc Surg 1993;7:156-168.
19. White RA, Goldberg L, Hirose FM, et al. Effect of healing on small internal arterial graft compliance. Biomat Med Devices Artif Organs 1983;11:21-29.