WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS Contralateral great saphenous vein, small saphenous vein, and arm vein perform equally well for below knee vein bypass when ipsilateral great saphenous vein is either absent or not useable.Objective: Vein is regarded superior to artificial graft in peripheral arterial bypass surgery. However, this option is often limited owing to previous use or removal of the ipsilateral greater saphenous vein (iGSV). In this case, the contralateral great saphenous vein (cGSV), the small saphenous vein (SSV), or arm veins (AV) are possible alternatives. Experience with all three grafts for below knee vein bypass is reported. Methods: Consecutive patients treated at an academic tertiary referral centre between January 1998 and July 2018 using the cGSV, SSV, or AV as the main peripheral bypass graft were analysed. Study end points were primary patency, secondary patency, limb salvage, and survival. Results: Over the observed time period, 2642 bypass operations for treatment of peripheral artery disease with below knee target arteries were performed at the authors' institution: 1937 procedures using the iGSV; 644 bypass procedures using the cGSV (n ¼ 186; 28.9%), SSV (n ¼ 101; 15.7%), or AV (n ¼ 357; 55.4%); and 61 procedures using a prosthetic graft. The median follow up period was 2.3 years (range 9 dayse18.5 years). Thirty day mortality was 1.9% for the whole group and similar between the three groups. After five years, primary and secondary patency rates were comparable between the three groups. Secondary patency was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI] 66e83) in the cGSV and SSV groups, and 65% (95% CI 57e73) in the AV group (p ¼ .47). Limb salvage and survival after five years were, respectively, 73% (95% CI 65e81) and 89% (95% CI 82e95) in the cGSV group, 79% (95% CI 69e89) and 87% (95% CI 79e95) in the SSV group, and 74% (95% CI 68e80) and 83% (77e89) in the AV group (p ¼ .46). Conclusion: All three types of alternative autologous vein graft are equal regarding outcome parameters. Vascular surgeons should consider all autologous options if their preferred choice is not available.

No abstract

Introduction: Despite advances of endovascular interventions, bypass surgery remains the gold standard for treatment of long and complex arterial occlusions in the lower limb. Autologous vein is regarded superior to other options. As the graft of first choice, the great saphenous vein (GSV) is often not available due to previous bypass, stripping or poor quality. Other options like arm veins (AV) are important alternatives. As forearm portions of AVs are often unusable, a graft created from the upper arm basilic and cephalic veins provides a valuable alternative. Patients and Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients treated at an academic tertiary referral center between 01/1998 and 07/2018 using arm veins as the main peripheral bypass graft. Study endpoints were primary patency, secondary patency, limb salvage and survival. Results: In the observed time period 2702 bypass procedures were performed at our institution for below-knee arterial reconstructions. Vein grafts used included the ipsilateral GSV (iGSV; n = 1937/71.7%), contralateral GSV (cGSV; 192/7.1%), small saphenous vein (SSV; 133/4.9%), prosthetic conduits (61/2.3%) and different configurations of AV (379/14%). In the majority of patients receiving AV grafts a complete continuous cephalic or basilic vein (CAV) was used (n = 292/77%). If it was not possible to use major parts of these 2 veins, either spliced arm vein grafts (SAV) (42/11%) or an upper arm basilic-cephalic loop graft (45/12%) were used. Median follow-up was 27 (interquartile range: 8-50) months. After 3 years secondary patency (CAV: 85%; SAV: 62%; loop: 66%; p = 0.125) and limb salvage rates (CAV: 79%, SAV: 68%; loop: 79%; p = 0.346) were similar between the 3 bypass options. Conclusion: The encouraging results of alternative AV configurations highlight their value in case the basilic or cephalic veins are not useable in continuity. Especially for infragenual redo-bypass procedures, these techniques should be considered to offer patients durable revascularization options.

No abstract

No abstract