ArticleVascular specialist international2023
The Results of Femorofemoral Bypass Using a Saphenous Vein Graft as an Alternative to PTFE Grafts.
Article in Vascular specialist international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to report the results of femorofemoral bypass (FFB) using a great saphenous vein (GSV) graft as an alternative to polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts. Materials and Methods: From January 2012 to December 2021, 168 patients who underwent FFB (PTFE, 143; GSV, 25) were included. The patients' demographic features and surgical intervention results were retrospectively reviewed. Results: There were no intergroup differences in patients' demographic features. In GSV vs. PTFE grafts, the superficial femoral artery provided statistically significant inflow and outflow (P<0.001 for both), and redo bypass was more common (P=0.021). The mean follow-up duration was 24.7±2.3 months. The primary patency rates at 3 and 5 years were 84% and 74% for PTFE grafts and 82% and 70% for GSV grafts, respectively. There was no significant intergroup difference in primary patency (P=0.661) or clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR)-free survival (P=0.758). Clinical characteristics, disease details, and procedures were analyzed as risk factors for graft occlusion. Multivariate analysis revealed that none of the factors was associated with an increased risk of FFB graft occlusion. Conclusion: FFB using PTFE or GSV grafts is a useful method with an approximately 70% 5-year primary patency rate. The GSV and PTFE grafts showed no difference in primary patency or CD-TLR-free survival during follow-up; however, FFB using GSV may be an option in selective situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.