• Shamsh P Shaikh, Maha H Haqqani, Daniel B Alfson, Alexandra Forsyth, Fernando Brea, Aaron Richman, Jeffrey J Siracuse, Denis Rybin, Robert T Eberhardt, Alik Farber, and Tejal S Brahmbhatt.
• Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, MA, United States.
• Injury. 2023 Mar 22.

ObjectiveUse of autologous great saphenous vein (GSV) grafts for repair of extremity arterial injuries is well established. Contralateral great saphenous vein (cGSV) is traditionally used in the setting of lower extremity vascular injury given the risk of occult ipsilateral superficial and deep venous injury. We evaluated outcomes of ipsilateral GSV (iGSV) bypass in patients with lower extremity vascular trauma.MethodsPatient records at an ACS verified Level I urban trauma center between 2001 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who sustained lower extremity arterial injuries managed with autologous GSV bypass were included. Propensity-matched analysis compared the iGSV and cGSV groups. Primary graft patency was assessed via Kaplan-Meier analysis at 1-year and 3-years following the index operation.ResultsA total of 76 patients underwent autologous GSV bypass for lower extremity vascular injuries. 61 cases (80%) were secondary to penetrating trauma, and 15 patients (20%) underwent repair with iGSV bypass. Arteries injured in the iGSV group included popliteal (33.3%), common femoral (6.7%), superficial femoral (33.3%), and tibial (26.7%), while those in the cGSV group included common femoral (3.3%), superficial femoral (54.1%), and popliteal (42.6%). Reasons for using iGSV included trauma to the contralateral leg (26.7%), relative accessibility (33.3%), and other/unknown (40%). On unadjusted analysis, iGSV patients had a higher rate of 1-year amputation than cGSV patients (20% vs. 4.9%), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). Propensity matched analysis also found no significant difference in 1-year major amputation (8.3% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.99). Regarding ambulatory status, iGSV patients had similar rates of independent ambulation (33.3% vs. 38.1%), need for assistive devices (58.3% vs. 57.1%), and use of a wheelchair (8.3% vs. 4.8%) compared cGSV patients at subsequent follow-up (P = 0.90). Kaplan-Meier analysis of bypass grafts revealed comparable primary patency rates for iGSV versus cGSV bypasses at 1-year (84% vs. 91%) and 3-years post-intervention (83% vs. 90%, P = 0.364).ConclusionIpsilateral GSV may be used as a durable conduit for bypass in cases of lower extremity arterial trauma where use of contralateral GSV is not feasible, with comparable long-term primary graft patency rates and ambulatory status.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 keywords...

hide…