Données fondamentales relatives aux procédures chirurgicales de revascularisation sous-inguinale : Mise à jour sur une période de vingt ans

Donn�ees de la litt�erature pour la pratique clinique enchirurgie endovasculaire

DOI of or1Programm

Th�erapeutique2Section d

Universit�e de M3D�epartem

Connecticut, U4Syst�eme d

Correspond10 Amistad St8089, USA, E-

Ann Vasc SurgDOI: 10.1016/� Annals of V�Edit�e par ELS

Donn�ees fondamentales relatives auxproc�edures chirurgicales de revascularisationsous-inguinale : Mise �a jour sur une p�eriodede vingt ans

Kenneth R. Ziegler,1,2 Akihito Muto,1,2 Sammy D.D. Eghbalieh,1,3 Alan Dardik,1,2,4

Connecticut, USA

En 1990, Dalman et Taylor publiaient une compilation des donn�ees publi�ees li�ees aux proc�edu-res de revascularisation sous-inguinale en chirurgie vasculaire p�eriph�erique au cours desann�ees 1980s. Les 20 ann�ees suivantes voyaient des avanc�ees r�evolutionnaires dans le champde la chirurgie vasculaire p�eriph�erique, concernant particuli�erement les techniques endo-vasculaires, et une explosion de donn�ees li�ees aux technologies �emergentes dans le champ desrevascularisations sous-inguinales. Les tableaux de ce manuscrit refl�etent l’�evolution de notreconnaissance chirurgicale en ce d�ebut de 21�eme si�ecle. La sup�eriorit�e du greffon veineuxsaph�ene autologue �a tous les niveaux est r�eaffirm�ee.

En 1990, Dalman et Taylor1 publiaient une compi-

lation des donn�ees publi�ees li�ees aux proc�edures derevascularisation sous-inguinale en chirurgie vas-

culaire p�eriph�erique au cours des ann�ees 1980.

Les 20 ann�ees suivantes voyaient des avanc�eesr�evolutionnaires dans le champ de la chirurgie vas-

culaire p�eriph�erique, concernant particuli�erement

les techniques endovasculaires, et une explosion de

iginal article: 10.1016/j.avsg.2010.10.010.

e interd�epartemental de Biologie Vasculaire et de, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

e Chirurgie Vasculaire du D�epartement de Chirurgie,�edecine de Yale, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

ent de Chirurgie, Hopital St. Mary, Waterbury,SA.

e soins VA du Connecticut, West Haven, Connecticut, USA.

ance : Alan Dardik, Yale University School of Medicine,reet, Room 437, PO Box 208089, New Haven, CT 06520-mail: [email protected]

2011; 25: 413-422j.acvfr.2012.03.013ascular Surgery Inc.EVIER MASSON SAS

donn�ees li�ees aux technologies �emergentes dans

le champ des revascularisations sous-inguinales.

Les tableaux de ce manuscrit refl�etent l’�evolutionde notre connaissance chirurgicale en ce d�ebut de21�eme si�ecle (Tableaux I-VI) ; par exemple, puisqu’il

existe un consensus sur l’�equivalence des techni-

ques invers�ees et in situ lorsqu’un greffon veineux

saph�ene est utilis�e, les tableaux ne contiennent que

‘‘veine saph�ene autologue’’ comme cat�egorie. Ega-lement, les r�esultats mettent en �evidence la large

utilisation du polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�ene, les diff�erentstypes de sites donneurs pour pontage distal, et la

disponibilit�e de donn�ees �a long terme apr�es pontage.Cet article inclut toutes les s�eries publi�ees en

Anglais de 1990 �a 2009, identifi�ees dans la base

de donn�ees PubMed et r�ecup�er�ees �a la Biblioth�equeM�edicale Universitaire de Yale, �a partir desquelles

des donn�ees concernant les revascularisations

sous-inguinales primaires pouvaient etre extraites.

Les donn�ees concernant les r�einterventions �etaientexclues. Les donn�ees individuelles de ces tableaux�etaient d�eriv�ees de pond�erations moyennes de

courbes de KaplaneMeier. Aucune correction

441

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_given name

mailto:[email protected]

Tableau I. Pontages f�emoro-poplit�es, r�esultats combin�esa

Mat�eriel et Param�etre 1 mois 6 mois 1 an 3 ans 5 ans 10 ans et + R�ef�erences

Veine saph�ene autologue

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 95 90 86 77 72 51 2-34, 35

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 96 92 92 86 83 63 2, 4-6, 11, 13, 18-20, 22-25, 29-

31, 33, 35

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�enePerm�eabilit�e primaire 93 83 77 55 51 32 3, 5, 12, 13, 15-18, 21-23, 25-28,

30, 33-64

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 90 79 79 59 62 24 5, 13, 18, 22, 23, 25, 30, 37-40,

43, 45-49, 51, 53, 56, 58-62,

65

Dacron

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 100 78 71 56 59 41 14, 37, 39, 45, 47, 51, 58, 59, 62

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 75 74 64 70 0 37, 39, 45, 47, 51, 58, 62, 65

Polyester

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 98 84 77 20

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 98 87 81 20

Veine Ombilicale humaine

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 91 82 75 65 60 16, 27, 43, 61, 66-71

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 90 85 76 67 70 43, 61, 66, 68-71

Allogreffe veineuse

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 87 84 69 59 64 72-74

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 74 52 41 75, 76

Veine du membre sup�erieurPerm�eabilit�e secondaire 70 77

Sauvetage de membre

Veine saph�ene autologue 98 90 93 87 89 89 2-7, 12,13, 15, 19, 22, 24-30, 34

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�ene 92 84 88 82 71 68 3, 5, 12, 13, 15, 22, 25-28, 30,

34, 37, 38, 41, 42, 46, 48, 50,

52-54, 56, 57, 59-61, 65

Dacron 96 91 87 36, 59, 65

Veine ombilicale humaine 90 83 82 27, 61, 66, 68, 70, 71

Allogreffe veineuse 88 74

Veine du membre sup�erieur 81 77

Survie

Veine saph�ene autologue 86 72 65 32 2, 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30,

31, 33, 135

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�ene 87 77 61 33 5, 13, 15, 18, 22, 25, 30, 33, 36,

38, 39, 41, 46, 51, 53, 54, 57,

59, 60, 65, 135

Dacron 85 75 68 40 14, 39, 51, 59, 65

Veine ombilicale humaine 53 3 70

Allogreffe veineuse 91 63 74

aTous les r�esultats sont exprim�es sous la forme de pourcentages.

442 Ziegler et al. Annales de chirurgie vasculaire

statistique n’�etait r�ealis�ee sur les donn�ees retro-

uv�ees ; les incoh�erences entre les donn�ees indivi-

duelles refl�etent les variations des r�esultats et des

intervalles observ�es entre les �etudes publi�ees ;

Dalman et Taylor notaient des difficult�es similaires�a compiler les donn�ees de multiples publications

d�etaill�ees diff�eremment il y a 20 ans.

Comme pr�esent�e dans les tableaux ci-dessous,

la cat�egorie perm�eabilit�e primaire inclut la

‘‘perm�eabilit�e primaire assist�ee’’ lorsque rapport�eecomme telle ; la ‘‘perm�eabilit�e secondaire’’ est

d�efinie par la perm�eabilit�e du greffon suite �a une

proc�edure secondaire destin�ee �a r�etablir un flux

sanguin. Les ‘‘artifices distaux’’ incluent toutes les

proc�edures r�ealis�ees dans le but d’augmenter le

flux distal, par exemple, les patchs veineux dis-

taux, les coiffes de Miller et les fistules art�erio-veineuses.

Tableau II. Pontages f�emoro-poplit�es sus-articulairesa



Perm�eabilit�e primaire 96 89 86 79 75 44 3, 12-30

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 96 90 89 83 80 46 13, 18-20, 22-25, 29-30

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�enePerm�eabilit�e primaire 96 87 80 58 53 32 3, 12, 13, 15-18, 21-23, 25-28, 30, 33,

36-57, 63, 64

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 97 91 87 65 70 24 13, 18, 22, 23, 25, 30, 33, 38-40, 43,

45-49, 51, 53, 56, 65

Dacron

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 100 91 79 67 62 44 14, 37, 39, 45, 47, 51

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 88 75 75 0 39, 45, 47, 51, 65

Polyester

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 98 84 77 20


Veine ombilicale humaine

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 91 82 79 70 60 16, 27, 43, 66, 67

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 68 43, 66

Allogreffe veineuse

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 95 82 76 75 72

Sauvetage de membre

Veine saph�ene autologue 94 85 82 80 81 79 12, 13, 15, 22, 24-26, 28, 30

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�ene 94 85 86 79 72 68 3, 12, 13, 15, 22, 25, 26, 28, 30, 41, 42,

46, 50, 52-54, 56, 65

Dacron 94 65

Survie

Veine saph�ene autologue 78 62 32 13, 15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�ene 86 81 70 33 13, 15, 18, 22, 25, 30, 33, 36, 39, 41,

46, 50, 53, 65

Dacron 87 77 77 41 14, 39, 51, 65


Vol.25,No.3,2011

Donn �ees

dela

litt �erature

443

Tableau III. Pontages f�emoro-poplit�es sous-articulairesa



Perm�eabilit�e primaire 93 94 86 83 71 53 3, 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 27, 29, 31-34

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 95 92 87 83 71 19, 25, 29, 31, 33

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�enePerm�eabilit�e primaire 78 63 74 53 44 39 3, 15, 25, 27, 33, 34, 37, 38, 44, 48-50,

52-54, 56, 57, 64

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 75 58 69 48 46 25, 33, 38, 48, 49, 53, 56

Dacron

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 74 46 51 26 14, 37


Perm�eabilit�e primaire 38 29 55 27, 66, 68, 69

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 90 85 65 55 62 66, 68, 69

Allogreffe veineuse

Perm�eabilit�e primaire 87 74 68 55 44 72, 73


Sauvetage de membre

Veine saph�ene autologue 15, 25

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�ene 87 74 74 71 63 15, 25, 50, 52-54, 56

Veine ombilicale humaine 66

Survie

Veine saph�ene autologue 68 74 15, 25, 31, 33

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�ene 42 15, 25, 33, 53

Dacron 86 60 36 14


444

Ziegler

etal.

Annalesdech

irurgie

vascu

laire

Tableau IV. Pontages f�emoro-cruraux/f�emoro-jambiersa



Perm�eabilit�e primaire 93 85 82 72 69 48 4, 6, 11, 15, 19, 27, 29, 31, 78-94

Site donneur f�emoral

uniquement

97 85 78 74 64 4, 6, 11, 15, 27, 29, 31, 78-82

Site donneur poplit�euniquement

96 88 87 77 70 78, 83-88

Site donneur jambier

uniquement

85 77 77 66 63 89, 90

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 95 88 88 79 79 60 4, 6, 11, 19, 29, 31, 78-87, 90,

92-95

Site donneur f�emoral

uniquement

96 86 88 78 80 62 4, 6, 11, 19, 29, 31, 78-82, 95

Site donneur poplit�euniquement

98 93 92 88 79 37 78, 83-87

Site donneur jambier

uniquement

85 80

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�enePerm�eabilit�e primaire 88 70 60 40 24 15, 27, 38, 48, 49, 53, 54, 88,

96-114

Avec artifice distal 91 74 61 47 24 88, 96-103, 105-108, 113

Sans artifice distal 86 63 57 32 25 15, 38, 53, 54, 104, 109-112, 114

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 90 76 65 47 28 38, 48, 49, 53, 95, 97, 98, 100-

105, 109-114

Avec artifice distal 91 78 69 60 97, 98, 100-103, 105, 113

Sans artifice distal 90 74 62 44 32 38, 54, 104, 109-112, 114


Perm�eabilit�e primaire 59 55 56 47 39 27, 66, 68, 69, 71, 115-118

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 71 82 66 58 47 66, 68, 69, 71, 115-117

Allogreffe veineuse cryopr�eserv�eePerm�eabilit�e primaire 77 65 43 40 44 72-74, 119-124

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 85 56 45 40 22 73, 75, 76, 119, 122, 125, 126

Veine du membre sup�erieurPerm�eabilit�e primaire 87 68 61 42 93, 112, 127-131

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 95 85 73 60 52 77, 93, 112, 127-129, 131

Sauvetage de membre

Veine saph�ene autologue 97 92 94 87 89 85 4, 6, 15, 19, 29, 78-80, 82-87, 89,

91-95

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�ene 90 80 75 69 57 15, 38, 48, 53, 54, 96-107,

109-114

Veine ombilicale humaine 67 63 65 61 68 66, 68, 71, 115-118

Allogreffe veineuse 93 88 74 51 73, 74, 119-122, 124-126

Veine du membre sup�erieur 94 82 78 84 63 77, 93, 112, 127-130

Survie

Veine saph�ene autologue 96 94 85 69 60 33 15, 19, 31, 78-81, 83, 86, 87, 89,

91-93, 95

Polyt�etrafluoro�ethyl�ene 96 83 74 55 40 15, 38, 53, 98, 99, 101, 103-105,

107, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114

Veine ombilicale humaine 87 79 79 64 50 115, 118

Allogreffe veineuse 74 83 71 60 73, 74, 122, 125, 126

Veine du membre sup�erieur 86 95 81 61 93, 128, 129


Vol. 25, No. 3, 2011 Donn�ees de la litt�erature 445

Tableau V. Pontages sur les art�eres de la cheville ou du pieda

Mat�eriel et Param�etre 1 mois 6 mois 1 an 3 ans 5 ans 7 ans R�ef�erences


Perm�eabilit�e primaire 93 83 74 64 59 46 19, 80, 91, 132-135, 136, 137

Perm�eabilit�e secondaire 97 81 82 70 49 19, 78, 133-135, 136, 137

Veine du membre sup�erieurPerm�eabilit�e secondaire 55 29

Sauvetage de membre inf�erieurVeine saph�ene autologue 96 91 79 81 84 63 80, 91, 132-135, 136, 137

Veine du membre sup�erieur 57 29

Survie

Veine autologue 98 90 89 65 63 80, 91, 133


Tableau VI. Mortalit�e p�eri-op�eratoire associ�ee aux pontages sous-inguinaux, en fonction du niveau

Anastomose distale Mortalit�e p�eri-op�eratoire (30 jours, %) R�ef�erences

Art�ere poplit�ee 2,17 2, 5, 8, 9, 14-18, 20-24, 29, 30, 33-36,

38-43, 46, 51-54, 56-60, 65, 66, 70,

72, 74, 75

Au-dessus du genou 0,9 16-18, 20, 22-24, 30, 36, 39-43, 46, 51,

65

Art�eres jambi�ere/crurale 3,53 15, 38, 66, 72-76, 78-86, 89, 91, 92, 94,

95, 98-107, 109-116, 118-122,

124-128, 131

Site donneur f�emoral 4,03 15, 38, 66, 72-76, 79, 82, 98-107,

109-116, 118-122, 124-127, 131

Site donneur poplit�e 1,74 83-85

Site donneur jambier 2 89

Art�eres distales �a la cheville ou au pied 3,01 80, 91, 133-135, 136


R�EF�ERENCES

1. Dalman RL, Taylor LM. Basic data related to infrainguinal

revascularization procedures. Ann Vasc Surg 1990;4:

309-312.

2. Watelet J, Soury P, Menard JF, et coll. Femoropopliteal

bypass: in situ or reversed vein grafts? Ten-year results of a

randomized prospective study. Ann Vasc Surg 1997;11:

510-519.

3. Jackson MR, Belott TP, Dickason T, et coll. The conse-

quences of a failed femoropopliteal bypass grafting: com-

parison of saphenous vein and PTFE grafts. J Vasc Surg

2000;32:498-505.

4. Lawson JA, Tangelder MJD, Algra A, Eikelboom BC. The

myth of the in situ graft: superiority in infrainguinal bypass

surgery? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1999;18:149-157.

5. Kram HB, Gupta SK, Veith FJ, Wengerter KR, Panetta TF,

Nwosisi C. Late results of two hundred seventeen femo-

ropopliteal bypasses to isolated popliteal artery segments. J

Vasc Surg 1991;14:386-390.

6. Maini BS, Orr RK, O’Mara P, Hendershott T. Outcome and

resource utilization in a managed care setting for lower

extremity vein bypass grafts. Am J Surg 1996;172:113-117.

7. Kretschmer G, Herbst F, Prager M, et coll. A decade of oral

anticoagulant treatment to maintain autologous vein grafts

for femoropopliteal atherosclerosis. Arch Surg 1992;127:

1112-1115.

8. Chapleau D, Lassonde J, Blair JF, Laurendeau F. In situ

femoro-popliteal bypass grafts. Study of 85 cases using Car-

tier’s technique [in French]. Ann Chir 1991;45:751-755.

9. Moody AP, Edwards PR, Harris PL. In situ versus reversed

femoropopliteal vein grafts: long-term follow-up of a

prospective, randomized trial. Br J Surg 1992;79:750-752.

10. Franks PJ, Sian M, Kenchington GF, Alexander CE,

Powell TJ. Aspirin usage and its influence on femoro-

popliteal vein graft patency. The Femoro-popliteal Bypass

Trial Participants. Eur J Vasc Surg 1992;6:185-188.

11. Mills JL, Taylor SM. Results of infrainguinal revasculari-

zation with reversed vein conduits: a modern control

series. Ann Vasc Surg 1991;5:156-162.

12. John TG, Stonebridge PA, Kelman J, et coll. Above-knee

femoropopliteal bypass grafts and the consequences of graft

failure. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1993;75:257-260.

13. Berlakovich GA, Herbst F, Mittbock M, Kretschmer G. The

choice of material for above-knee femoropopliteal bypass: a

20-year experience. Arch Surg 1994;129:297-302.

14. Kobayashi M, Hida K, Shikata H, Sakamoto A, Matsubara J.

Long term outcome of femoropopliteal bypass for claudica-

tion and critical ischemia. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann

2004;12:208-212.

15. Daenens K, Schepers S, Fourneau I, Houthoofd S,

Nevelsteen A. Heparin-bonded ePTFE grafts compared with

vein grafts in femoropopliteal and femorocrural bypasses:

1- and 2-year results. J Vasc Surg 2009;49:1210-1216.


16. Johnson WC, Lee KK. A comparative evaluation of poly-

tetrafluoroethylene, umbilical vein, and saphenous vein

bypass grafts for femoral-popliteal above-knee revascula-

rization: a prospective randomized Department of Vete-

rans Affairs cooperative study. J Vasc Surg 2000;32:

268-277.

17. Ballotta E, Renon L, Toffano M, Da Giau G. Prospective

randomized study on bilateral above-knee femoropopliteal

revascularization: polytetrafluoroethylene graft versus

reversed saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg 2003;38:1051-1055.

18. Klinkert P, Schepers A, Burger DH, van Bockel JH,

Breslau PJ. Vein versus polytetrafluoroethylene in above-

knee femoropopliteal bypass grafting: five-year results of

a randomized control trial. J Vasc Surg 2003;37:149-155.

19. Shah DM, Darling RC III, Chang BB, Fitzgerald KM,

Paty PSK, Leather RP. Long-term results of in situ saphe-

nous vein bypass. Ann Surg 1995;222:438-448.

20. Tofigh AM, Warnier De Wailly G, Rhissassi B. Comparing

vein with collagen impregnated woven polyester prosthesis

in above-knee femoropopliteal bypass grafting. Int J Surg

2007;5:109-113.

21. Archie JP Jr. Femoropopliteal bypass with either adequate

ipsilateral reversed saphenous vein or obligatory polyte-

trafluoroethylene. Ann Vasc Surg 1994;8:475-484.

22. AbuRahma AF, Robinson PA, Holt SM. Prospective con-

trolled study of polytetrafluoroethylene versus saphenous

vein in claudicant patients with bilateral above knee

femoropopliteal bypasses. Surgery 1999;126:594-601.

23. Sala F, Hassen-Khodja R, Lecis A, Bouillanne PJ,

Declemy S, Batt M. Long-term outcome of femoral above-

knee popliteal artery bypass using autologous saphenous

vein versus expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. Ann

Vasc Surg 2003;17:401-407.

24. De Luccia N, Brochado-Neto FC, Romiti M, et coll. Pre-

ferential use of nonreversed vein grafts in above-knee

femoropopliteal bypasses for critical ischemia: midterm

outcome. Ann Vasc Surg 2008;22:668-675.

25. Plecha EJ, Freischlag JA, Seabrook GR, Towne JB. Femo-

ropopliteal bypass revisited: an analysis of 138 cases. Car-

diovasc Surg 1996;4:195-199.

26. Z’graggen K, Inderbitzi R, Krebs T, Stirnemann P. The value

of suprageniculate femoro-popliteal polytetrafluoroe-

thylene prosthesis in surgical treatment of chronic arterial

occlusive disease [in German]. Vasa 1990;19:311-314.

27. Budd JS, Brennan J, Beard JD, Warren H, Burton PR,

Bell PR. Infrainguinal bypass surgery: factors determining

late graft patency. Br J Surg 1990;77:1382-1387.

28. Achermann A, Gurke L, Stirnemann P. Supragenicular

bypass: venous in comparison with synthetic prosthesis

(PTFE) [in German]. Swiss Surg 1998;4:129-132.

29. Taylor LM, Edwards JM, Porter JM. Present status of

reversed vein bypass grafting: five-year results of a modern

series. J Vasc Surg 1990;11:193-206.

30. Curi MA, Skelly CL, Meyerson SL, et coll. Conduit choice

for above-knee femoropopliteal bypass grafting in patients

with limb-threatening ischemia. Ann Vasc Surg 2002;16:

95-101.

31. Macaulay EM, Samy AK, Cooper GG. Infrageniculate vein

bypass graft for critical limb ischaemia: one surgeon’s

experience. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1996;41:391-394.

32. Enzler M, Sege D, Nagel W, Clerici T. Results of in situ

bypass [in German]. Helv Chir Acta 1991;57:759-764.

33. Allen BT, Reilly JM, Rubin BG, et coll. Femoropopliteal

bypass for claudication: vein vs. PTFE. Ann Vasc Surg

1996;10:178-185.

34. Lau H, Cheng SW. Long-term prognosis of femoropopliteal

bypass: an analysis of 349 consecutive revascularizations.

ANZ J Surg 2001;71:335-340.

35. Burger DHC, Kappetein AP, van Bockel JH, Breslau PJ. A

prospective randomized trial comparing vein with polyte-

trafluoroethylene in above-knee femoropopliteal bypass

grafting. J Vasc Surg 2000;32:278-283.

36. Aune S, Laxdal E. Above-knee prosthetic femoropopliteal

bypass for intermittent claudication. Results of the initial

and secondary procedures. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg

2000;19:476-480.

37. Post S, Kraus T, Muller-Reinartz U, et coll. Dacron vs

polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for femoropopliteal bypass: a

prospective randomised multicentre trial. Eur J Vasc

Endovasc Surg 2001;22:226-231.

38. Bosiers M, Deloose K, Verbist J, et coll. Heparin-bonded

expanded polytetrafluoroethylene vascular graft for femo-

ropopliteal and femorocrural bypass grafting: 1-year

results. J Vasc Surg 2006;43:313-319.

39. Jensen LP, Lepantalo M, Fossdal JE, et coll. Dacron or PTFE

for above-knee femoropopliteal bypass. A multicenter ran-

domised study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007;34:44-49.

40. Prendiville EJ, Yeager A, O’Donnell TF Jr, et coll. Long-

term results with the above-knee popliteal expanded

polytetrafluoroethylene graft. J Vasc Surg 1990;11:

517-524.

41. Patterson RB, Fowl RJ, Kempczinski RF, Gewirtz R,

Shukla R. Preferential use of EPTFE for above-knee femo-

ropopliteal bypass grafts. Ann Vasc Surg 1990;4:338-343.

42. O’Riordain DS, Buckley DJ, O’Donnell JA. Polytetra-

fluoroethylene in above-knee arterial bypass surgery for

critical ischemia. Am J Surg 1992;164:129-131.

43. Aalders GJ, van Vroonhoven TJ. Polytetrafluoroethylene

versus human umbilical vein in above-knee femoropo-

pliteal bypass: six-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

J Vasc Surg 1992;16:816-824.

44. Zempo N, Esato K, O-Hara M, Fujioka K, Kuga T,

Takenaka H. Is the preferential use of polytetrafluoroe-

thylene grafts for below-knee femoropopliteal bypass jus-

tified? Int Surg 1993;78:162-165.

45. Green RM, Abbott WM, Matsumoto T, et coll. Prosthetic

above-knee femoropopliteal bypass grafting: five-year

results of a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 2000;31:417-425.

46. Kavanagh EG, O’Riordain DS, Buckley DJ, O’Donnell JA.

Long term results of polytetrafluoroethylene in above knee

femoropopliteal bypass for critical ischemia. Ir J Med Sci

1998;167:221-224.

47. Miyazaki K, Nishibe T, Sata F, et coll. Prosthetic grafts for

above-knee femoropopliteal bypass. A multicenter retro-

spective study of 564 grafts. Int Angiol 2002;21:145-151.

48. Peeters P, Verbist J, Deloose K, et coll. Results with heparin

bonded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for femorodistal

bypasses. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2006;47:407-413.

49. Hugl B, Nevelsteen A, Daenens K, et coll. PEPE IIda

multicenter study with an end-point heparin-bonded

expanded polyfluoroethylene vascular graft for above and

below knee bypass surgery: determinants of patency. J

Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2009;50:195-203.

50. Griffiths GD, Nagy J, Black D, Stonebridge PA. Randomized

clinical trial of distal anastomotic interposition vein cuff in

infrainguinal polytetrafluoroethylene bypass grafting. Br J

Surg 2004;91:560-562.

51. Rosenthal D, Evans RD, McKinsey J, et coll. Prosthetic

above-knee femoropopliteal bypass for intermittent clau-

dication. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 1990;31:462-468.


52. Gupta SK, Veith FJ, Kram HB, Wengerter KR. Prospective,

randomized comparison of ringed and nonringed polyte-

trafluoroethylene femoropopliteal bypass grafts: a pre-

liminary report. J Vasc Surg 1991;13:163-172.

53. Davies MG, Feeley TM, O’Malley MK, Colgan MP,

Moore DJ, Shanik GD. Infrainguinal polytetrafluoroe-

thylene grafts: saved limbs or wasted effort? A report on

ten years’ experience. Ann Vasc Surg 1991;5:519-524.

54. Quinones-Baldrich WJ, Prego AA, Ucelay-Gomez R, et coll.

Long-term results of infrainguinal revascularization with

polytetrafluoroethylene: a ten-year experience. J Vasc Surg

1992;16:209-217.

55. El-Kayali AA. Polytetrafluoroethylene use for above-knee

femoropopliteal bypass in critical limb ischemia. Saudi

Med J 2003;24:669-671.

56. Stonebridge PA, Prescott RJ, Ruckley CV. Randomized trial

comparing infrainguinal polytetrafluoroethylene bypass

grafting with and without vein interposition cuff at the

distal anatamosis. The Joint Vascular Group. J Vasc Surg

1997;26:543-550.

57. Raptis S, Miller JH. Influence of a vein cuff on polytetra-

fluoroethylene grafts for primary femoropopliteal bypass.

Br J Surg 1995;82:487-491.

58. Robinson BI, Fletcher JP, Tomlinson P, et coll. A pros-

pective randomized multicentre comparison of expanded

polytetrafluoroethylene and gelatin-sealed knitted Dacron

grafts for femoropopliteal bypass. Cardiovasc Surg 1999;7:

214-218.

59. Devine C, McCollum C. Heparin-bonded Dacron or poly-

tetrafluorethylene for femoropopliteal bypass: five-year

results of a prospective randomized multicenter clinical

trial. J Vas Surg 2004;40:924-931.

60. Dorigo W, Di Carlo F, Troisi N, et coll. Lower limb revas-

cularization with a new bioactive prosthetic graft: early and

late results. Ann Vasc Surg 2008;22:79-87.

61. McCollum C, Kenchington G, Alexander C, Franks PJ,

Greenhalgh RM. PTFE or HUV for femoro-popliteal bypass:

a multi-centre trial. Eur J Vasc Surg 1991;5:435-443.

62. Robinson BI, Fletcher JP. Australian and New Zealand

Femoropopliteal Graft Trial Participants. Fluoropolymer

coated Dacron or polytetrafluoroethylene for femoropo-

pliteal bypass grafting: a multicentre trial. ANZ J Surg

2003;73:95-99.

63. Leseche G, Ohan J, Bouttier S, Palombi T, Bertrand P,

Andreassian B. Above-knee femoropopliteal bypass graft-

ing using endothelial cell seeded PTFE grafts: five-year

clinical experience. Ann Vasc Surg 1995;9(Suppl):S15-S23.

64. Deutsch M, Meinhart J, Fischlein T, Preiss P, Zilla P. Cli-

nical autologous in vitro endothelialization of infrainguinal

ePTFE grafts in 100 patients: a 9-year experience. Surgery

1999;126:847-855.

65. Abbott WM, Green RM, Matsumoto T, et coll. Prosthetic

above-knee femoropopliteal bypass grafting: results of a

multicenter randomized prospective trial. Above Knee

Femoropopliteal Study Group. J Vasc Surg 1997;25:19-28.

66. Sommeling CA, Buth J, Jakimowicz JJ. Long-term beha-

vior of modified human umbilical vein grafts; late aneu-

rysmal degeneration established by colour-duplex

scanning. Eur J Vasc Surg 1990;4:89-94.

67. Sato O, Okamoto H, Takagi A, Miyata T, Takayama Y.

Biodegradation of glutaraldehyde-tanned human umbilical

vein grafts. Surg Today 1995;25:901-905.

68. Dardik H. The second decade of experience with the

umbilical vein graft for lower-limb revascularization. Car-

diovasc Surg 1995;3:265-269.

69. Batt M, Gagliardi JM, Avril G, et coll. Human umbilical

vein grafts as infrainguinal bypasses: long term clinical

follow-up and pathological investigation of explanted

grafts. Clin Invest Med 1990;13:155-164.

70. Neufang A, Espinola-Klein C, Dorweiler B, Messow CM,

Schmiedt W, Vahl CF. Femoropopliteal prosthetic bypass

with glutaraldehyde stabilized human umbilical vein

(HUV). J Vasc Surg 2007;46:280-288.

71. Dardik H, Wengerter K, Feng Qin, et coll. Comparative

decades of experience with glutaraldehyde-tanned human

umbilical cord vein graft for lower limb revascularization:

an analysis of 1275 cases. J Vasc Surg 2002;35:64-71.

72. van Reedt Dortland RW, van Leeuwen MS, Steijling JJ,

Theodorides T, van Vroonhoven TJ. Long-term results with

vein homograft in femoro-distal arterial reconstructions.

Eur J Vasc Surg 1991;5:557-564.

73. Farber A, Major K, Wagner WH, et coll. Cryopreserved

saphenous vein allografts in infrainguinal revasculariza-

tion: analysis of 240 grafts. J Vasc Surg 2003;38:15-21.

74. Harris L, O’Brien-Irr M, Ricotta JJ. Long-term assessment

of cryopreserved vein bypass grafting success. J Vasc Surg

2001;33:528-532.

75. Rebane E, Tikko H, Tunder E, et coll. Venous allografts for

infrainguinal vascular bypass. Cardiovasc Surg 1997;5:

21-25.

76. Streinchenberger R, Barjoud H, Adeleine P, et coll. Venous

allografts preserved at 4 degrees C for infrainguinal bypass:

long-term results from 170 procedures. Ann Vasc Surg

2000;14:553-560.

77. Faries PL, Arora S, Pomposelli FB Jr, et coll. The use of arm

vein in lower-extremity revascularization: results of 520

procedures performed in eight years. J Vasc Surg 2000;31:

50-59.

78. Ballotta E, Renon L, De Rossi A, Barbon B, Terranova O, Da

Giau G. Prospective randomized study on reversed saphe-

nous vein infrapopliteal bypass to treat limb-threatening

ischemia: common femoral artery versus superficial femo-

ral or popliteal and tibial arteries as inflow. J Vasc Surg

2004;40:732-740.

79. Damme HV, Zhang L, Baguet E, Creemers E, Albert A,

Limet R. Crural artery bypass with the autogenous greater

saphenous vein. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003;26:

635-642.

80. Schneider JR, Walsh DB, McDaniel MD, Zwolak RM,

Besso SR, Cronenwett JL. Pedal bypass versus tibial bypass

with autogenous vein: a comparison of outcome and

hemodynamic results. J Vasc Surg 1993;17:1029-1040.

81. Conte MS, Belkin M, Donaldson MC, Baum P,

Mannick JA, Whittemore AD. Femorotibial bypass for

claudication: do results justify an aggressive approach? J

Vasc Surg 1995;21:873-880.

82. Wengerter KR, Veith FJ, Gupta SK, et coll. Prospective

randomized multicenter comparison of in situ and reversed

vein infrapopliteal bypasses. J Vasc Surg 1991;13:189-199.

83. Brown PS, McCarthy WJ, Yao JST, Pearce WH. The

popliteal artery as inflow for distal bypass grafting. Arch

Surg 1994;129:596-602.

84. Verhelst R, Bruneau M, Nicolas AL, et coll. Popliteal-to-

distal bypass grafts for limb salvage. Ann Vasc Surg

1997;11:505-509.

85. Goyal A, Shah PM, Babu SC, Mateo RB. Popliteal-crural

bypass through the posterior approach with lesser saphe-

nous vein for limb salvage. J Vasc Surg 2002;36:708-712.

86. Mills JL, Gahtan V, Fujitani RM, Taylor SM, Bandyk DF.

The utility and durability of vein bypass grafts originating


from the popliteal artery for limb salvage. Am J Surg

1994;168:646-651.

87. Probst H, Saucy F, Dusmet M, et coll. Clinical results of

autologous infrainguinal revascularization using grafts

originating distal to the femoral bifurcation in patients with

mild inflow disease. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2006;47:

437-443.

88. Grego F, Antonello M, Stramana R, Deriu GP, Lepidi S.

Popliteal-to-distal bypass for limb salvage. Ann Vasc Surg

2004;18:321-328.

89. Lyon RT, Veith FJ, Marsan BU, et coll. Eleven-year expe-

rience with tibiotibial bypass: an unusual but effective

solution to distal tibial artery occlusive disease and limited

autologous vein. J Vasc Surg 1994;20:61-69.

90. Sugawara Y, Sato O, Miyata T, Kimura H, Namba T,

Makuuchi M. Tibioperoneal bypass for popliteal arterial

occlusion. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 1998;39:19-23.

91. Abou-Zamzam AM, Moneta GL, Lee RW, Nehler MR,

Taylor LM, Porter JM. Peroneal bypass is equivalent to

inframalleolar bypass for ischemic pedal gangrene. Arch

Surg 1996;131:894-899.

92. Anderson CB, Stevens SL, Allen BT, Sicard GA. In situ

saphenous vein for lower extremity revascularization.

Surgery 1992;112:6-10.

93. Brochado-Neto FC, Albers M, Pereira CAB, Gonzalez J,

Cinelli M Jr. Prospective comparison of arm veins and

greater saphenous veins as infrageniculate bypass grafts.

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2001;22:146-151.

94. Belkin M, Knox J, Donaldson MC, Mannick JA,

Whittemore AD. Infrainguinal arterial reconstruction with

nonreversed greater saphenous vein. J Vasc Surg 1996;24:

957-962.

95. Londrey GL, Ramsey DE, Hodgson KJ, Barkmeier LD,

Sumner DS. Infrapopliteal bypass for severe ischemia:

comparison of autogenous vein, composite, and prosthetic

grafts. J Vasc Surg 1991;13:631-636.

96. Pappas PJ, Hobson RW II, Meyers MG, et coll. Patency of

infrainguinal polytetrafluoroethylene bypass grafts with

distal interposition vein cuffs. Cardiovasc Surg 1998;6:19-26.

97. Bellosta R, Luzzani L, Carugati C, Melloni C, Sarcina A.

Which distal anastamosis should be used in PTFE femoro-

tibial bypass? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2005;46:499-503.

98. Morasch MD, Couse NF, Colgan MP, Moore DJ,

Shanik GD. Lower extremity bypass for critical ischemia

using synthetic conduit and adjuvant vein cuff. Ann Vasc

Surg 1997;11:242-246.

99. Stonebridge PA, Naidu S, Colgan MP, Moore DJ,

Shanik DG, McCollum PT. Tibial and peroneal artery

bypasses using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) with an

interposition vein cuff. J R Coll Surg Edinb 2000;45:17-20.

100. PannetonJM,Hollier LH,Hofer JM.Multicenter randomized

prospective trial comparing a pre-cuffed polytetrafluoroe-

thylene graft to a vein cuffed polytetrafluoroethylene graft

for infragenicular arterial bypass. Ann Vasc Surg 2004;18:

199-206.

101. Aracil-Sanus E, Mendieta-Azcona C, Cuesta-Gimeno C,

Chinchilla-Molina A. Infragenicular bypass graft for limb

salvage using polytetrafluoroethylene and distal vein cuff

as the first alternative in patients without ipsilateral greater

saphenous vein. Ann Vasc Surg 2005;19:379-385.

102. Jakobsen HL, Baekgaard N, Christoffersen JK. Below-knee

popliteal and distal bypass with PTFE and vein cuff. Eur J

Vasc Endovasc Surg 1998;15:327-330.

103. Lauterbach SR, Torres GA, Andros G, Oblath RW. Infra-

genicular polytetrafluoroethylene bypass with distal vein

cuffs for limb salvage: a contemporary series. Arch Surg

2005;140:487-494.

104. Kashyap VS, Ahn SS, Quinones-Baldrich WJ, et coll.

Infrapopliteal-lower extremity revascularization with pro-

sthetic conduit: a 20-year experience. Vasc Endovasc Surg

2002;36:255-262.

105. Eagleton MJ, Ouriel K, Shortell C, Green RM. Femoral-

infrapopliteal bypass with prosthetic grafts. Surgery

1999;126:759-765.

106. Ascher E, Scheinman M, Mazzariol F, Kallakuri S,

Hingorani A. Comparison between supra- and infra-

inguinal inflow sites for infrapopliteal PTFE bypasses with

complementary arteriovenous fistula and vein interposi-

tion. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2000;19:138-142.

107. Hingorani AP, Ascher E, Marks NA, et coll. A 10-year

experience with complementary distal arteriovenous fis-

tula and deep vein interposition for infrapopliteal pro-

sthetic bypasses. Vasc Endovascular Surg 2005;39:401-409.

108. Lazarides MK, Tzilalis VD, Georgiadis GS,

Georgopoulos SE, Arvanitis DP. Femoral-anterior tibial

reconstructions using cuffed PTFE grafts: routing alterna-

tives. Vasa 2003;32:22-25.

109. Klinkert P, van Dijk PJ, Breslau PJ. Polytetrafluoroethylene

femorotibial bypass grafting: 5-year patency and limb sal-

vage. Ann Vasc Surg 2003;17:486-491.

110. Schweiger H, Klein P, Lang W. Tibial bypass grafting for

limb salvage with ringed polytetrafluoroethylene pro-

stheses: results of primary and secondary procedures. J

Vasc Surg 1993;18:867-874.

111. Parsons RE, Suggs WD, Veith FJ, et coll. Polytetrafluoroe-

thylene bypasses to infrapopliteal arteries without cuffs or

patches: a better option than amputation in patients

without autologous vein. J Vasc Surg 1996;23:347-356.

112. Calligaro KD, Syrek JR, Dougherty MJ, Rua I, Raviola CA,

DeLaurentis DA. Use of arm and lesser saphenous vein

compared with prosthetic grafts for infrapopliteal arterial

bypass: are they worth the effort? J Vasc Surg 1997;919-

927.

113. Neville RF, Tempesta B, Sidway AN. Tibial bypass for limb

salvage using polytetrafluoroethylene and a distal vein

patch. J Vasc Surg 2001;33:266-272.

114. Hamdan AD, Rayan SS, Hook SC, et coll. Bypasses to tibial

vessels using polytetrafluoroethylene as the solo conduit in

a predominantly diabetic population. Vasc Endovascular

Surg 2002;36:59-63.

115. Neufang A, Espinola-Klein C, Dorweiler B, Savvidis S,

Schmiedt W, Vahl CF. Infrapopliteal composite bypass with

autologous vein and second generation glutaraldehyde

stabilized human umbilical vein (HUV) for critical lower

limb ischaemia. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2007;34:

583-589.

116. Neufang A, Espinola-Klein C, Dorweiler B, et coll.

Sequential femorodistal composite bypass with second

generation glutaraldehyde stabilized human umbilical vein

(HUV). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2005;30:176-183.

117. Batt M, Avril G, Gagliardi JM, et coll. Femorodistal bypass

using the chemically processed human umbilical vein graft:

9-year experience. Can J Surg 1990;33:61-65.

118. Moody AP, al Fagih S, Edwards PR, Campbell H, Harris PL.

The use of an adjuvant arterio-venous shunt in prosthetic

femoro-crural bypass. Eur J Vasc Surg 1991;5:327-332.

119. Walker PJ, Mitchell RS, McFadden PM, James DR,

Mehigan JT. Early experience with cryopreserved saphe-

nous vein allografts as a conduit for complex limb-salvage

procedures. J Vasc Surg 1993;18:561-569.


120. Buckley CJ, Abernathy S, Lee SD, Arko FR, Patterson DE,

Manning LG. Suggested treatment protocol for improving

patency of femoral-infrapopliteal cryopreserved saphenous

vein allografts. J Vasc Surg 2000;32:731-738.

121. Carpenter JP, Tomaszewski JE. Immunosuppression for

human saphenous vein allograft bypass surgery: a pros-

pective randomized trial. J Vasc Surg 1997;26:32-42.

122. Martin RS III, Edwards WH, Mulherin JL, Edwards WH Jr,

Jenkins JM, Hoff SJ. Cryopreserved saphenous vein allo-

grafts for below-knee lower extremity revascularization.

Ann Surg 1994;219:664-672.

123. De Leersnijder D, Willocx P, Van Marck E, Vanmaele R.

Venous homografts in infra-inguinal procedures: an eight

years experience. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 1992;33:

633-640.

124. Posner MP, Makhoul RG, Altman M, et coll. Early results

of infrageniculate arterial reconstruction using cryo-

preserved homograft saphenous conduit (CADVEIN) and

combination low-dose systemic immunosuppression. J Am

Coll Surg 1996;183:208-216.

125. Leseche G, Penna C, Bouttier S, Joubert S, Andreassian B.

Femorodistal bypass using cryopreserved venous allografts

for limb salvage. Ann Vasc Surg 1997;11:230-236.

126. Harris RW, Schneider PA, Andros G, Oblath RW, Salles-

Cunha S, Dulawa L. Allograft vein bypass: is it an accep-

table alternative for infrapopliteal revascularization? J Vasc

Surg 1993;18:553-560.

127. Sesto ME, Sullivan TM, Hertzer NR, Krajewski LP,

O’Hara PJ, Beven EG. Cephalic vein grafts for lower

extremity revascularization. J Vasc Surg 1992;15:543-549.

128. Harward TR, Coe D, Flynn TC, Seeger JM. The use of arm

vein conduits during infrageniculate arterial bypass. J Vasc

Surg 1992;16:420-426.

129. Tisi PV, Crow AJ, Shearman CP. Arm vein reconstruction

for limb salvage: long-term outcome. Ann R Coll Surg Engl

1996;78:497-500.

130. Armstrong PA, Bandyk DF, Wilson JS, Shames ML,

Johnson BL, Back MR. Optimizing infrainguinal arm vein

bypass patency with duplex ultrasound surveillance and

endovascular therapy. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:724-731.

131. Chalmers RT, Hoballah JJ, Kresowik TF, et coll. The impact

of color duplex surveillance on the outcome of lower limb

bypass with segments of arm veins. J Vasc Surg 1994;19:

279-286.

132. Connors JP, Walsh DB, Nelson PR, et coll. Pedal branch

artery bypass: a viable limb salvage option. J Vasc Surg

2000;32:1071-1079.

133. Hughes K, Domenig CM, Hamdan AD, et coll. Bypass to

plantar and tarsal arteries: an acceptable approach to limb

salvage. J Vasc Surg 2004;40:1149-1157.

134. Shah DM, Darling RC III, Chang BB, Kaufman JL,

Fitzgerald KM, Leather RP. Is long vein bypass from groin

to ankle a durable procedure? An analysis of a ten-year

experience. J Vasc Surg 1992;15:402-408.

135. Harrington EB, Harrington ME, Schanzer H, Jacobson JH,

Haimov M. The dorsalis pedis bypassdmoderate success in

difficult situations. J Vasc Surg 1992;15:409-414.

136. Quinones-Baldrich WJ, Colburn MD, Ahn SS,

Gelabert HA, Moore WS. Very distal bypass for salvage of

the severely ischemic extremity. Am J Surg 1993;166:

117-123.

137. Wolfle KD, Bruijnen H, Reeps C, et coll. Tibioperoneal

arterial lesions and critical foot ischemia: successful

management by the use of short vein grafts and per-

cutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Vasa 2000;29:

207-214.

Documents

Données fondamentales relatives aux procédures chirurgicales de revascularisation sous-inguinale : Mise à jour sur une période de vingt ans