The Upper-Arm Basilic-Cephalic Loop: A Valueable Alternative for Below-Knee Arterial Reconstruction

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.

Long-term outcomes of a novel method of femoropopliteal bypass

“…Если же БПВ подготовлена методом in situ, то не только возрастает риск травматизации стенки сосуда в результате выполнения вальвулотомии фактически "вслепую" [13][14][15][16][17]. Сохраненные притоки БПВ служат мостом для сброса крови в венозное русло, что может привести к артериализации венозного кровотока [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. В ряде случаев подобная ситуация может сопровождаться "синдромом обкрадывания" и вторичной ишемией конечности с дальнейшим неблагоприятным прогнозом.…”