Percutaneous transluminal lower limb angioplasty [PTA] for chronic limb  threatening ischaemia [CLTI] in a low resource setting - 4 year experience

Cassim, M R N; Godahewa, S.; Paviththiran, S.; Wijeyaratne, Mandika

doi:10.4038/sljs.v38i3.8789

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 20 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The low incidence of serious complications makes PTA an attractive alternative in the treatment of patients with ischemic foot ulcers. Even in a low-resource setting, PTA is an attractive option for revascularization and wound healing for patients presenting with ischemic ulcers consistent with Rutherford's category five tissue loss (11).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of bypass versus primary angioplasty for lower extremity chronic limb-threatening peripheral arterial diseases

Ulukan

Karakaya

Uğurlucan

et al. 2021

Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Peripheral arterial diseases (PAD) is seen frequently with increasing age, and have a prevalence of about 20% over 70 years of age. We aimed the results of two different treatment approaches as open surgical procedures and radiological interventions. Material and Method:We reviewed the data of PAD from the online data system of the hospital. The patients treated by endovascular femoropopliteal revascularization versus open surgical femoropopliteal graft bypass between January 2016 and December 2019 were enrolled in to study. Eighty limbs of 67 patients with the symptomatic severe occlusive disease and results were evaluated in the aspect of reducing ischemia and prevention of amputation in this retrospective study. Results: 67 patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 (n=29) was the interventional PTA/S group, group 2 (n=38) was the open surgical bypass group. 8 of the patients in Group 2 and 5 of patients in Group 1 had bilateral lesions. Patients were at a mean age of 63.44±8.98 years. The mean time of hospitalization time was significantly longer following a first-time bypass (10 vs. 8 days). The success of results was ending of claudication and ischemia and prevention of amputation of an extremity. In these aspects, there was no difference between procedure types. Conclusion:In the aspect of the length of hospital stay and infection, interventional procedures seem more benefit however in longterm evaluation, freedom from reintervention or redo bypass was significantly higher in the bypass group (92% vs 79% p<0.01).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%