Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10796649›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2000

Graft type for femoro-popliteal bypass surgery.

N Mamode, R N Scott

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Graft type for femoro-popliteal bypass surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Application of Porous Scaffolds for Cardiovascular Tissues.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

N MamodeDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Alexandra Parade, Glasgow, UK, G31 2ER. nizam@mamode.demon.co.uk
R N Scott
Glasgow Royal Infirmary · GBMonklands Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVascular surgeons construct femoro-popliteal bypass grafts, from the groin to the knee, to save limbs that might otherwise require amputation in patients with severe arterial disease, and to improve walking distance in patients with less severe arterial disease. During the operation, the blocked native artery is bypassed using either a section of the patient's own vein (autologous vein), human umbilical vein (HUV), or an artificial graft e.g. Dacron or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).

objectivesThe objective of this review was to determine the most effective type of graft for femoro-popliteal bypass surgery. SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewers searched the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group trials register, reference lists of relevant articles, and hand searched proceedings from the British and European Vascular Surgical Societies and the North American Society of Vascular Surgery. They also contacted all major manufacturers of artificial grafts and authors of published trials to enquire about unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing one type of femoro-popliteal graft with another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both reviewers selected trials and assessed trial quality independently. MAIN

resultsNine trials were included with a total of 1334 participants. These investigated a variety of graft types. In one trial of above-knee grafting, primary and secondary patency were significantly better for saphenous vein (73% and 90%, respectively) compared to PTFE (47%, p<0.05 and 47%, p<0.05) and Dacron (54%, p<0.01 and 60%, p<0.01) at four years. Two trials comparing in-situ and reversed saphenous vein grafts to the above- and below-knee popliteal artery revealed no differences in primary patency (64% v 62% respectively), secondary patency (65% v 70%), or survival with intact limb (74% both groups) with five to ten year follow-up. Three trials comparing PTFE with HUV showed significantly better secondary patency rates for HUV, (41% v 73%, p<0.005; 49% v 66%, p<0.05; 22% v 42%,p=0.005) one also showed significantly better primary patency for HUV at five years (32% v 65%, p<0.001). Comparison of PTFE grafts with, and without, a vein cuff found no difference in above-knee grafts. However, primary patency below-knee was higher with a PTFE plus vein cuff bypass (52% v 29%, p=0.03) at two years. REVIEWER'S

conclusionsThere is no clear evidence which type of graft is best for femoro-popliteal grafting. In terms of autologous graft patency, in-situ and reversed vein grafts are equally successful, while HUV performs better than PTFE. A distal vein cuff may improve primary patency for below-knee PTFE femoro-popliteal grafts.

Indexed as

Blood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationVascular Surgical ProceduresArterial Occlusive DiseasesFemoral ArteryHumansLegPolyethylene TerephthalatesPolytetrafluoroethylenePopliteal ArterySaphenous VeinTransplantation, AutologousUmbilical VeinsPolyethylene TerephthalatesPolytetrafluoroethylene

Identifiers

PMID10796649
OpenAlexW1599942290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.