Advertisement

Biomaterials in Vascular Surgery

  • Martin R. Back
  • Rodney A. White
Chapter

Abstract

The development of materials to replace or bypass diseased arterial segments has facilitated substantial advances in vascular surgery over the last 40 yr. Porous cloth tubes were first introduced as an arterial substitute in 1952 by Voorhees and colleagues (1). Five years later Edwards and Tapp fabricated bifurcated aortic grafts of braided nylon that were crimped to prevent kinking (2). Newer synthetic prostheses have enabled successful reconstructions in large-diameter, high-flow vessels, such as the aorta and its primary intrathoracic and abdominal branches. In medium-sized (<6mm diameter) and small-diameter arteries (<4mm) bypass or replacement with long segments of textile grafts have results in unacceptable lower long-term patency rates. Small vessel reconstructions presently rely on the use of autogenous veins for coronary artery and below-knee femoropopliteal lesions and for microvascular repair of digital and cerebral vessels. Better determination of the characteristics influencing biomaterial function will allow development of low-flow prostheses for small diameter arteries and venous reconstruction.

Keywords

Wall Shear Stress Vascular Graft Prosthetic Graft Vascular Prosthesis Dacron Graft 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Voorhees AB Jr, Jeretzki A III, and Blakemore AH. The use of tubes constructed from vinyon “N” cloth in bridging arterial defects—a preliminary report. Ann Surg 1952; 135: 332.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards WS and Tapp JS. A flexible aortic bifurcation graft of chemically treated nylon. Surgery 1957; 41: 723.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abbott WM, Callow A, Moore W, Rutherford R, Veith F, and Weinberg S. Evaluation and performance standards for arterial prostheses. J Vasc Surg 1993; 17: 746–756.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sottiurai VA and Batson RC. Autogenous vein grafts, in Biologic and Synthetic Vascular Prostheses 1982; (Stanley JC, ed), Grune Stratton, New York, pp 311–331.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waddell WE, Vogelfanger IJ, and Bose M. Changes in contractility, compliance and elasticity in experimental arterial-vein autografts. Can JSurg 1973; 16: 252.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Szilagyi DE, Elliott JP, Hageman JH, Smith RF, and Dall’Olma CA. Biologic fate of autogenous vein implants as arterial substitutes: clinical, angiographic, and histopathologic observations in femoropopliteal operations for atherosclerosis. Ann Surg 1973; 178: 232.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Szilagyi DE, Hageman JH, Smith RF, Elliott JP, Brown F, and Dietz P. Autogenous vein grafting in femoropopliteal atherosclerosis: the limits of its effectiveness. Surgery 1979; 86: 836.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Szilagyi DE. Atherogenesis in venous bypass grafts, in Vascular Grafts 1978; (Sawyer PN and Kaplitt JJ, eds), Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 243–272.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adcock GLD, Adcock OT Jr, Wheeler JR, et al. Arterialization of reversed autogenous vein grafts: quantitative light and electron microscopy of canine jugular vein grafts harvested and implanted using standard or improved techniques. J Vasc Surg 1987; 6: 283–295.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kakkar V. The cephalic vein as a peripheral vascular graft. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1969; 129: 551.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schulman ML and Bradley MR. Late results and angiographie evaluate of arm veins as long bypass grafts. Surgery 1982; 92: 1032.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carrel A. Results of the transplantation of blood vessels, organs, and limbs. JAMA 1980; 51: 1662.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gross RE, Hurwitt ES, and Bill AH Jr. Preliminary observations on the use of human arterial grafts in the treatment of certain cardiovascular defects. NEngl JMed 1948; 239: 578.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Perloff LJ, Rowlands DT, and Barker DF. Studies of the modified venous allograft. Ann Surg 1977; 186: 227.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elmore JR, Gloviczki P, Brockbank KGM, and Miller VM. Cryopreservation affects endothelial and smooth muscle function of canine autogenous saphenous vein grafts. J Vasc Surg 1991; 13: 584–592.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller VM, Bergman RT, Gloviczki P, and Brock-bank KGM. Cryopreserved Venous allografts: effects of immunosuppression and antiplatelet therapy on patency and function. J Vasc Surg 1993; 18: 216–226.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gelbfish J, Jacobowitz IJ, Rose DM, et al. Cryopreserved homologous saphenous vein: early and late patency in coronary artery bypass surgical procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 1986; 42: 70–73.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sellke FW, Meng RL, and Rossi NP. Cryopreserved saphenous vein homografts for femoral-distal vascular reconstruction. J Cardiovasc Surg 1989; 30: 838–842.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dardik H and Dardik I. Successful arterial substitution with modified human umbilical vein. Ann Surg 1976; 193: 252.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cranley JJ and Hafner CD. Revascularization of the femoropopliteal arteries using saphenous vein, polytetrafluoroethylene, and umbilical vein grafts: 5 and 6 years results. Arch Surg 1982; 117: 1543.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dardik H, Ibahim M, Sussman B, Kahn M, Sanchez M, Klausner S, et al. Biodegradation and aneurysm formation in umbilical vein grafts. Ann Surg 1984; 199: 61.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenberg N, Gaughran ERL, and Henderson J. The use of segmental arterial implants prepared by enzymatic modification ofheterologous blood vessels. Surg Forum 1956; 6: 242.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenberg N. Dialdehyde starch tanned bovine heterografts: development, in Vascular Grafts 1978; (Sawyer PN and Kaplitt MJ, eds), AppletonCentury-Crofts, New York, p 261.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmitz-Rixen T, Megerman J, Anderson JM, Warnock DF, L’Italien GJ, Erasmi H, et al. Long term study of a compliant biological vascular graft. Eur J Vasc Surg 1991; 5: 149–158.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    West NC, Sells R, Korn Y, and Mcverry BA. A new modified bovine heterograft for vascular access in hemophiliacs. Clin Lab Hematol 1984; 6: 375–377.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Butt KMH. Bovine heterograft for arteriovenous fistula, in Vascular Grafts 1978; (Sawyer PN and Kaplitt MJ, eds), Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 278–281.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sawyer PN, Sophie Z, and O’Shaughnessy A. Vascular prostheses: innovative properties, in Vascular Graft Update: Safety and Performance 40 1986; (Kambic HE, Kantrowitz A, and Sung P, eds), American Society For Testing and Materials, Publications STP 898, Philadelphia, PA, pp 290–305. 41Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baier RE: Properties and characteristics of biosynthetic grafts, in Vascular Graft Update: Safety and Performance 1986; (Kambic HE, Kantrowitz A, and Sung P, eds), American Society For Testing and Materials, Publications STP 898, Philadelphia, PA, pp 95–107. 42Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perloff LJ, Christie BA, Ketharanathan V, Field PC, Milne PY, Macleish DG, et al. A new replacement for small vessels. Surgery 1981; 89: 31–41. 43Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Veith FJ, Gupta S, and Daly V. Management of early and late thrombosis ofPTFE femoropopliteal bypass grafts: favorable prognosis with appropriate reoperation. Surgery 1980; 87: 581.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bergan JJ, Veith F, Bernhard VM, Yao JST, Flinn 44 WR, Gupta SK, et al. Randomization of autogenous vein and polytetrafluoroethylene grafts in femoral-distal reconstruction. Surgery 1982; 92: 921.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hobson RW II, O’Donnell JA, Jamil Z, and Mehta 45 K. Below knee bypass for limb salvage. Arch Surg 1980; 115: 833.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Charlesworth PM, Brewster DC, Darling RC, Robinson JG, and Hallet JW. The fate ofpolytetra- 46 fluoroethylene graft in lower limb bypass surgery:a six year follow-up. BrJSurg 1985; 72: 896–899.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sapsfor RN, Oakley GD, and Talbot S. Early and late patency of expanded polytetrafluorethylene vascular graft in aortocoronary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1981; 81: 860–864. 47Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gazzaniga AB, Lamberti JJ, and Siewers RD. Arterial prosthesis of microporous expanded polytetrafluorothylene for construction ofaortopulmonary shunt. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1976; 27: 357.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    White RA. The effect ofporosity and biomaterial 48 on the healing and long-term mechanical properties of vascular prostheses. Am Soc Artif Int Organs 1988; 11: 95–100.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chaikof EL, Coleman JE, Ramberg K, Connolly 49 RJ, Merrill EW, and Callow AD. Development and evaluation of a new polymeric material for small caliber vascular prostheses. J Surg Res 1989; 47: 193–199.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leake DL, Cenni E, Cavedagna D, Tea S, Giapetti 50 G, and Pizzoferrato A. Comparative study of thromboresistance of Dacron combined with various polyurethanes. Biomateria11989;10: 441–444.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    DeCossant L, How TV, and Annis D. A two year 51 study of the performance of a small diameter polyurethane (Biomer) arterial prostheses. J 52 Cardiovasc Surg 1989; 30: 388–39Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hess F, Jerusalem C, Braun B, and Grande P. Three years experience with experimental implantation of fibrous polyurethane microvascular prostheses in rat aorta. Microsurgery 1985; 6: 155–162.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fisher AC, How TV, DeCossart L, and Annis D. The longer term patency of a compliant small diameter arterial prosthesis: the effect of withdrawing of aspirin and dipyridamole therapy: the effect of reduced compliance. Trans Am Artif Intern Organs 1985; 31: 324–328.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Marois Y, Guidoin R, Boyer D, Assayed F, Doillon CJ, Paynter R, et al. In vivo evaluation of hydrophobic and fibrillar microporous polyetherurethaneurea graft. Biomaterials 1989; 10: 521–530.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Brothers TE, Stanley JC, Burkel WE, and Graham LM. Small-caliber polyurethane and polytetrafluorethylene grafts: a comparative study in a canine aortoiliac model. J Biomed Mat Res 1990; 24: 761–771.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Dereume JP, vanRomphey A, Vincent G, and Engelmann E. Femoropopliteal bypass with a compliant, composite polyurethan Dacron graft: short-term results of a multicentre trial. Cardiovasc Surg 1993; 1: 499–503.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wesolowski SA, Fries CC, Domingo RT, Liebig WJ, and Sawyer PN. The compound prosthetic vascular graft: apathologic survey. Surgery 1963; 53: 1944.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Galletti G, Gogolewski S, Ussia G, and Farruggia F. Long term patency of regenerated neoartic wall following the implant of a fully biodegradable polyurethane prosthesis: experimental lipid diet model in pigs. Ann Vasc Surg 1989; 3: 236–245.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Griesler HP and Kim DV. Aspects of biodegradable vascular prostheses, in Vascular Graft Update: Safety and Performance 1986; (Kambic HE, Kantrowitz A, and Sung P, eds), American Society for Testing and Materials Publications STP 598, Philadelphia, pp 197–218.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Greisler HP, Petsikas D, Lam TM, Patel N, Ellinger J, Cabusao E, et al. Kinetics of cell proliferation as a function of vascular graft material. JBiomed Mat Res 1993; 27: 955–961.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Greisler HP, Joyce KA, Kim DV, Pham SM, Berceli SA, and Borovetz HS. Spatial and temporal changes in compliance following implantation of bioresorbable vascular grafts. J Biomed Mat Res 1992; 26: 1449–1461.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Greisler HP, Tattersall CW, Klosak JJ, Cabusao EA, Garfield JD, and Kim DU. Partially bioresorbable vascular grafts in dogs. Surgery 1991; 110: 645–655.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Edwards WS. The effect ofporosity in solid plastic artery grafts. Surg Forum 1957; 8: 446–450.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wesolowski SA, Fries CC, Hennigar G, Fox LM, Sawyer PN, and Sauvage LR. Factors contributing to long-term failure in human vascular prostheses. J Cardiovasc Surg 1964; 5: 549–567.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wesolowski SA. Foundations of modern vascular grafts, in Vascular Grafts 1978; (Sawyer PN, ed), Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 27–49.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Szilagyi E, Pfeifer JR, and DeRusso FJ. Long-term evaluation of plastic arterial substitutes: an experimental study. Surgery 1964; 55: 165–183.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Moore WS and MaloneJM. Vascular repair, in Fundamentals of Wound Management 1979; (Hunt TK and Dumphy JE, eds), Appleton-Century- Crofts, New York, pp 476–499.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Golden MA, Hanson SR, Kirkman TR, Schneider PA, and Clowes AW. Healing ofpolytetrafluoroethylene arterial grafts is influenced by graft porosity. J Vasc Surg 1990; 11: 838–845.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Clowes AW, Kirkman TR, and Reidy MA. Mechanisms of arterial graft healing. Rapid transmural capillary ingrowth provides a source of intimai endothelium and smooth muscle in porous PTFE prostheses. Am JPathol 1986; 123: 220–230.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Berger K, Sauvage LR, Rao AM, and Wood SJ. Healing of arterial prosthesis in man: its incompleteness. Ann Surg 1972; 175: 118–127.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kohler TR, Stratton JR, Kirkman TR, Johansen KH, Zierler BK, and Clowes AW. Conventional versus high-porosity polytetrafluoroethylene grafts: clinical evaluation. Surgery 1992; 112: 901–907.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wesolowski SA. The healing of vascular prostheses. Surgery 1965; 57: 319–324.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Goldman M, McCollum CN, Hawker RJ, Drole Z, and Slancy G. Dacron arterial grafts: the influence of porosity, velour, and maturity on thrombogenicity. Surgery 1982; 92: 947–952.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Stratton JR, Thiele BL, and Ritchie JL. Natural history of platelet deposition on Dacron aortic bifurcation grafts in the first year after implantation. Am J Cardiol 1983; 52: 371–374.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Greisler HP, Dennis JW, Endean ED, Ellinger J, Friesel R, and Burgess WH. Macrophage biomaterial interactions—the stimulation of endothelialization. J Vasc Surg 1989; 9: 588–593.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sauvage LR, Berger K, Wood SJ, Nakagawa Y, and Mansfield PB. An external velour surface for porous arterial prostheses. Surgery 1971; 70: 940–950.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sauvage LR, Berger K, Mansfield PB, Wood Si, Smith JC, and Overton JB. Future directions in the development of arterial prostheses for small and medium caliber arteries. Surg Clin No Am 1974; 54: 213–228.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lindenauer SM, Weber TR, Miller TA, Kahn SP, and Wojalik RS. Velour vascular prostheses. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1974; 20: 314–319.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Guidoin R, Gosselin C, Martin L, Marois M, and Laroche F. Polyester prostheses as substitutes in the thoracic aorta of dogs. I. Evaluation of commercial prostheses. JBiomed Mat Res 1988; 17: 1049–1077.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Claggett PC. In vivo evaluation of platelet reactivity with vascular prostheses, in Biologic and Synthetic Vascular Prostheses 1982; (Stanley JC, ed), Grune Stratton, New York, pp 131–152.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Koltke-Marchant K, Anderson JM, Umemura Y, and Marchant RE. Effect of albumin coating on the in vitro compatibility of Dacron arterial prostheses. Biomaterials 1989; 10: 147–155.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Bracherean A, Rudondy P, Cornier J-P, and Espinoza H. The albumin coated knitted dacron aortic prosthesis. A clinical study. Ann Vasc Surg 1990; 4: 138–142.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Guidon R, Marceau D, Couture J, Rao TJ, Merhi Y, Roy PE, et al. Collagen coatings as biological sealants for textile arterial prosthesis. Biomaterials 1989; 10: 156–165.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Jonas R, Schoen F, Ziemer G, Britton L, and Castaneda A. Biological sealants and knitted dacron conduits: comparison of collagen and fibrin glue pretreatments in circulatory models. Ann Thor Surg 1987; 44: 283–290.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Freischlag JA and Moore WS. Clinical experience with a collagen impregnated knitted Dacron vascular graft. Ann Vasc Surg 1990; 4: 449–454.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Granke K, Ochsner JL, McClugage SG, and Zdrahal P. Analysis of graft healing in a new elastomer-coated vascular prosthesis. Cardiovasc Surg 1993; 1: 754–761.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Campbell CD, Goldfarb D, Detton DD, Roe R, Goldsmith K, and Diethrich EB. Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene as a small artery substitute. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1974; 20: 96.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Campbell CD, Goldfarb D, and Roe R. A small artery substitute: expanded microporous polytetrafluoroethylene: patency versus porosity. Ann Surg 1975; 182: 138–143.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Akers DL, Du YH, and Kempczinski RF. The effect of carbon coating and porosity on early patency of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts: an experimental study. J Vasc Surg 1993; 18: 10–15.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hirabayaski K, Saitoh E, Ijima H, Takenawa T, Kodama M, and Hori M. Influence of fibril length upon a PTFE graft healing and host modification of the implant. J Biomed Mater Res 1992; 26: 1433–1447.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Golden MA, Au YPT, Kenagy RD, and Clowes AW. Growth factor gene expression by intimal cells in healing polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. J Vasc Surg 1990; 11: 580–585.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    White RA, White EW, Hanson EL, Rohner RF, and Webb WR. Preliminary report: evaluation of tissue ingrowth into experimental replamineform vascular prostheses. Surgery 1976; 79: 229–232.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    White RA. Evaluation of small diameter graft parameters using replamineform vascular prostheses, in Vascular Grafting 1983; (Wright CB, ed), John Wright PSG, Littleton, MA, pp 315–325.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Hiratzka LF, Goeken JA, White RA, and Wright CB: In vivo comparison ofreplamineform silastic and bioelectric polyurethane arterial grafts. Arch Surg 1979; 114: 698–702.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Long J, Tan E, DeSantis S, Shors E, Klein S, Goldberg L, et al. Implant microstructure and collagen synthesis. Trans Am Soc ArtifIntern Organs 1982; 28: 195–199.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bornstein P and Sage H. Structurally distinct collagen types. Ann Rev Biochem 1980; 49: 957–1003.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    BaierR. The organization ofblood components near interfaces. Ann NYAcad Sci 1976; 283: 17–36.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Anderson GH, Hellums JD, Pooare JL, and Alfrey CP: Platelet lysis and aggregation in shearfields. Blood Cells 1978; 4: 499–507.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Barenberg SA, Anderson JM, and Mauritz KA. Thrombogenesis: a epitaxial phenomenon. J Biomed Mater Res 1981; 15: 231–245.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Lyman DJ, Knutson K, McNeil B, and Shibatani K. The effect of chemical structure and surface properties of synthetic polymers on the coagulation of blood. IV. The relation between polymer morphology and protein absorption. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1975; 21: 49–54.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Weathersby PK, Horbett TA, and Hoffman AS. A new method for analysis of the absorbed plasma protein layer on biomaterial surface. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1976; 22: 242–247.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Sun N. Hematology: An Atlas and Diagnostic Guide 1983; Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 24–49.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Pankowsky DA, Ziats ND, Topham NS, Ratnoff OD, and Anderson, JM. Morphologic characteristics of absorbed human plasma proteins on vascular graft biomaterials. J Vasc Surg 1990; 11: 599–606.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Sawyer PN and Pate JW. Bio-electric phenomena as an etiologic factor in intravascular thrombosis. Am J Physiol 1953; 175: 103–107.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Andrade J, Coleman DL, Didisheim P, Hanson SR, Mason R, and Merrille E. Blood-materials interactions-20 years of frustration. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1981; 27: 659–662.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Grinnell F. Blood Material Interactions: Adsorption of Fibronectin Summary of the Devices and Technology Branch Contractors meeting, December, 1982. NIH publication no 84–1651. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute 1984; pp 141, 142.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Goodman SL, Cooper SL, and Albrecht RM. Integrin receptors and platelet adhesion to synthetic surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 1993; 27: 683–695.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Joist JH, Stevens DE, and Outer SP. The role of platelet prostaglandin synthesis in shear-induced platelet aggregation, release and lysis. Blood 1979; 54: 247a.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Dewitz TS, McIntire LV, Martin RS, and Sybers HD. Enzyme release and morphological changes in leukocytes induced by mechanical trauma. Blood Cells 1979; 5: 499–510.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Seeger JM, Borgeson M, and Lawson G. Pseudointimal thrombogenicity changes in small arterial grafts. Surgery 1990; 107: 620–626.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Harwick RA, Hellmus JD, Moake JL, and Peterson DM. Effects of antiplatelet agents on platelets exposed to shear stress. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1980; 26: 179–184.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Fuster V and Chesebro JH. II. Pharmacologic effects of platelet-inhibitor drugs. Mayo Clin Proc 1981; 56: 185–195.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Moncada S and Korbut R. Dipyridamole and other phosphodiesterase inhibitors act as anti-thrombotic agents by potentiating endogenous prostacyclin. Lancet 1978; 1: 1286–1289.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Oblath RW, Buckley FO, Green RM, Schwartz SI, and DeWeese JA. Prevention of platelet aggregation and adherence to prosthetic vascular grafts by aspirin and dipyridamole. Surgery 1978; 84: 37–44.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Hoffman AS, Ratner BD, Garfinkle AM, Reynolds LO, Horbett T, and Hanson R. The importance of vascular graft surface composition as demonstrated by a new gas discharge treatment for small diameter grafts, in Vascular Graft Update: Safety and Performance 1986; (Kambic HE, Kantorwitz A, and Sung P, eds), American Society For Testing and Materials Publications STP 898, Philadelphia pp 137–155.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Campbell CD, Goldfarb D, and Roe R. A small arterial substitute: expanded microporous polytetrafluorethylene: patency versus porosity. Ann Surg 1975; 82: 138–143.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Merrill EW. Properties of materials affecting the behavior of blood at their surfaces. Ann NYAcad Sci 1977; 183: 6–16.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Ward CA, Kobeil A, Johnson WR, and Madras PN. Reduction of complement activation from biomaterials by removal of air nuclei from the surface roughness. JBiomedMaterRes 1984; 18: 255–269.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Vann RD, Ritter EF, Plunkett MD, Wyble CW Jr, Bensen CV, Gerth WA, et al. Patency and blood flow in gas denucleated arterial prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res 1993; 27: 493–498.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Didisheim P, Dewanjee MK, Fass DN, and Fuster V. Blood Compatibility of Circulatory Assist Devices. Second Annual Report, NHLBI Contract HV-92915, April 1, 1980-May 31, 1981. Available from National Technology Information Center, 5285 Port Royal Rd, Springfield, VA 22151.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    White RA, Klein SR, Miranda RM, Goldberg L,Bosco P, and Nelson RJ. Microporous flow surface variation and short term thrombogenicity. Biomaterials 1982; 3: 145–149.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Olsen EK, Shaffer LJ, Pae WE, and Pierce WS. Biventricular mechanical assistance in the postcardiotomy patient. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1980; 26: 29–33.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Trono R, Bossart MI, Milan JD, and Norman JC. Ultrastructural analysis of blood-interfacing linings formed within partial artificial hearts or abdominal left ventricular assist devices: a qualitative scheme for human pseudoneointimal accretion kinetics. Cardiovasc Dis Bull Texas Heart Inst 1979; 6: 153–171.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Harker LA and Hanson SR. Graft thrombus formation detection and resolution, in Biologic and Synthetic Vascular Prostheses 1982; (Stanley JC, ed), Grune Stratton, New York, pp 101–111.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Sauvage LR, Fernandez LG, and Robel SB. Current status of prostheses for bypass of libial and coronary arteries. Presented at the 27th Congress of the International Society of Surgery, Kyoto, Japan, September 3–8, 1977, Seattle, Providence Medical Center, 1977.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Goldberg L, Bosco P, Shors E, Klein S, Nelson R, and White R. Effect of surface porosity on early thrombogenicity using vascular grafts with two surfaces in sequence. Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 1981; 27: 517–521.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Sank A, Rostami K, Weaver F, Ertl D, Yellin A, Nimni M, et al. New evidence and new hope concerning endothelial seeding of vascular grafts. Am J Surg 1992; 164: 199–204.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Hess F, Steeghs S, Jerusalem R, Reijnders O, Jerusalem C, Braun B, et al. Patency and morphology of fibrous polyurethane vascular prostheses implanted in the femoral artery of dogs after seeding with subcultivated endothelial cells. Eur J Vasc Surg 1993; 7: 402–408.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    DeWeese JA. Anastomotic intimal hyperplasia, in Vascular Grafts 1978; (Sawyer PN and Kaplitt MJ, eds), Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp 147–152.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Imparato AM, Bracco A, Kim GF, and Zeff R. Intimal and neointimal fibrous proliferation causing failure of arterial reconstruction. Surgery 1972; 72: 1007–1017.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Bandyk DF, Cato RF, and Towne JB. A low flow velocity predicts failure of femoropopliteal and femorotibial bypass grafts. Surgery 1985; 98: 799–809.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    LoGerfo FW, Sonerant T, Teel T, and Dewey CF. Boundary layer separation in models of side-toend arterial anastomoses. Arch Surg 1979; 114: 1369–1373.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Crawshaw HM, Quist WC, Serrallach E, Valeri R, and LoGerfo FW. Flow disturbance at the distal end-to-side anastomosis: effect of patency of the proximal outflow segment and angle of anastomosis. Arch Surg 1980; 115: 1280–1284.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Back MR, Cho YI, Crawford DW, and Back LH. Fluid particle motion and Lagrangian velocities for pulsatile flow through a femoral artery branch model. ASME J Biomechan Eng 1987; 109: 94–101.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Cho YI, Back LH, and Crawford DW. Experimental investigation of branch flow ratio, angle, and Reynold’s number effects on the pressure and flow fields in arterial branch models. ASME J Biomechan Eng 1985; 107: 257–267.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    LoGerfo FW, Quist WC, Newak MD, Crawshaw HM, and Haudennchild CC. Downstream anastomotic hyperplasia: a mechanism of failure in Dacron arterial grafts. Ann Surg 1983; 1197: 479–483.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Cantelmo NL, Quist WC, and LoGerfo FW. Quantitative analysis of anastomotic intimal hyperplasia in paired Dacron and PTFE grafts. J Cardiovasc Surg 1989; 30: 910–915.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Echave V, Koornick AR, Haimov M, and Jacobson JH. Intimal hyperplasia as a complication of the use of the polytetrafluoroethylene graft for femoral-popliteal bypass. Surgery 1979; 86: 791–798.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Bassiouny HS, White S, Glagov S, Choi E, Giddens DP, and Zarins CK. Anastomotic intimal hyperplasia: mechanical injury or flow induced. J Vasc Surg 1992; 15: 708–717.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Ku DN, Giddens DP, Zarins CK, and Glagov S. Pulsatile flow and atherosclerosis in the human carotid bifurcation: positive correlation between plaque location and low and oscillating shear stress. Arteriosclerosis 1985; 5: 293–302.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Zarins CK, Zatina MA, Giddens DP, Ku DN, and Glagov S. Shear stress regulation of artery lumen diameter in experimental atherogenesis. J Vasc Surg 1987; 5: 413–420.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Blaisdell FW, Stuart FP, and Hall AD. Effect of diameter and angulation on blood flow through plastic arterial substitutes. Am Surg 1964; 30: 192–196.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Kohler TR, Kirkman TR, Kraiss LW, Zierler BK, and Clowes AW. Increased blood flow inhibits neointimal hyperplasia in endothelialized vascular grafts. Circ Res 1991; 69: 1557–1565.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Geary RL, Kohler TR, Verges S, Kirkaman TR, and Clowes AW. Time course of flow-induced smooth muscle cell proliferation and intimal thickening in endothelialized baboon vascular grafts. Circ Res 1993; 74: 14–23.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Sanders RJ, Kempczinski RF, Hammond W, and DiClementi D. The significance of graft diameter. Surgery 1980; 88: 856–866.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Binn RL, Ku DN, Stewart MT, Ansley JP, and Coyle KA. Optimal graft diameter: effect of wall shear stress on vascular healing. JSurg 1989; 10: 326–337.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Sakariassen KS and Baumgartner HR. Axial dependence of platelet-collagen interactions in flowing blood. Arteriosclerosis 1989; 9: 33–42.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Schultz RD, Hokanson DE, and Strandness DE. Pressure-flow relations of the end-side anastomosis. Surgery 1967; 62: 319–324.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Strandness DE. Abnormal exercise responses after successful reconstructive arterial surgery. Surgery 1966; 59: 325–333.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Paasche PE, Kinley CE, Dolan FG, Gozna ER, and Marble AE. Consideration of suture line stresses in the selection of synthetic grafts for implantation. JBiomechan 1973; 6: 253–259.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Kinley CE, Paasche PE, MacDonald AS, and Marble AE. Stress at vascular anastomosis in relation to host artery: synthetic graft diameter. Surgery 1974; 75: 28–30.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Baird RN and Abbott WM. Pulsatile blood flow in arterial grafts. Lancet 1976; 2: 948–950.Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Abbott WM and Bouchier-Hayes DJ. The role of mechanical properties in graft design, in Graft Materials in Vascular Surgery 1978; (Dardik H, ed), Year Book, Chicago, p 67.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Abbott WM, Megerman J, Hasson JE, L’Italien G, and Warnock DF. Effect of compliance mismatch on vascular graft patency. J Vasc Surg 1987; 5: 376–382.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Wijesinghe AM. Pulsatile pore pressure in vascular prostheses. Trans Am SocArtifIntern Organs 1979; 25: 384–390.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Chien S. Significance of macrorheology and microrheology in atherogenesis. Ann NY Acad Sci 1976; 175: 10–27.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    O’Donnell TF, Mackey W, McCullough TL, Maxwell SL, Faber SP, Deterlin RA, et al. Conelation of operative findings with angiographic and noninvasive hemodynamic factors associated with failure of polytetrafluorethylene grafts. J Vasc Surg 1984; 1: 136–148.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    White RA, Goldberg L, Hirose FM, Klein SR, and Bosco P. Effect of healing on small internal diameter arterial graft compliance. Biomat Med Devices Artif Organs 1983; 11: 21–29.Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Baird RN, Kidson IG, L’Italien GJ, and Abbott WM. Dynamic compliance of arterial grafts. Am JPhysiol 1977; 233: 568–572.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Kolin A. Absolute induction angiometer. Blood Vessels 1980; 17: 61–77.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Gonza ER, Marble AE, Shaw A, and Holland JG. Age related changes in mechanics of the aorta and pulmonary artery in man. J Appl Physiol 1974; 36: 407.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Kinley CE and Marble AE. Compliance: a continuing problem with vascular grafts. J Cardiovasc Surg 1980; 21: 163–170.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Walden R, L’Italien GJ, Megerman J, and Abbott WM. Matched elastic properties and successful arterial grafting. Arch Surg 1980; 115: 1166–1169.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Uchida N, Kambic H, Emoto H, Chen J-F, Hsu S-H, Murabayshi S, et al. Compliance effects on small diameter polyurethane graft patency. JBiomed Mater Res 1993; 27: 1269–1279.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Klein SR, Goldberg L, Miranda R, and White R. Effect of suture technique on arterial anastomotic compliance. Arch Surg 1982; 117: 45–47.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Hasson JE, Megerman J, and Abbott WM. Increased compliance near vascular anastomoses. J Vasc Surg 1985; 2: 419–423.Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Megerman J, Hamilton G, Schmitz-Rixen T, and Abbott WM. Compliance of vascular anastomoses with polybutester and polypropylene sutures. J Vasc Surg 1993; 18: 827–834.Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Dotter CT and Judkins MP. Transluminal treatment of arteriosclerotic obstruction: description of a new technique and a preliminary report of its application. Circulation 1964; 30: 654–670.Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Dotter CT. Transluminal angioplasty: a long view. Radiology 1980; 135: 561–564.Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Gruntzig A and Hopff H. Percutane Rekanalisation chronischer arterieller Verschlusse mit einem neuen Dilatationskatheter: Modification der Dotter- Technik. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1974; 99: 2502–2505.Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Castaneda-Zuniga WR, Formanek A, Tadavarthy M, Vlodaver Z, Edwards JE, Zollikofer C, et al. The mechanism of balloon angioplasty. Radiology 1980; 135: 565–571.Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    Chin AK, Kinney TB, Rurik GW, Shoor PM, and Fogarty TJ. A physical measurement of the mechanisms oftransluminal angioplasty. Surgery 1983; 95: 196–200.Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Abele JE. Balloon catheters and transluminal dilatation: technical considerations. Am JRadiol 1980; 135: 901–906.Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Abele JE. Balloon catheter technology, in Interventional Radiology 1992; (Castaneda-Zuniga WR and Tadavarthy SM, eds), Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 345–350.Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    Matsumoto AH, Barth KH, Selby JB, and Tegtmeyer CJ. Peripheral angioplasty balloon technology. Cardiovasc Interven Radiol 1993; 16: 135–143.Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Fogarty TJ, Chin A, Shoor PS, Blair GL, and Zimmerman JJ. Adjunctive intraoperative arterial dilation: simplified instrumentation technique. Arch Surg 1981; 116: 1391–1398.Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Sigwart V, Puel J, Mirkovitch V, Joffre F, and Kappenberger L. Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and restenosis after transluminal angioplasty. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 701–706.Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    Roubin GS, King SB III, Douglas JS Jr, Lembo NJ, and Robinson KA. Intracoronary stenting during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1990; 81 (suppl IV): 92–100.Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Bonn J, Gardiner GA Jr, Palmaz J, Shapiro MJ, Sullivan KL, and Levin DC. Improved angioplasty hemodynamics after Palmaz vascular stent placement (abstract). Circulation 1989; 80 (suppl II): 411.Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Schatz RA. A view of vascular stents. Circulation 1989; 79: 445–457.Google Scholar
  169. 169.
    Becker GJ. Intravascular stents: general principles and status of lower extremity arterial applications. Circulation 1991; 83 (suppl I): 122–136.Google Scholar
  170. 170.
    Back MR, Kopchok G, Mueller M, Cavaye D, Donayre C, and White RA. Changes in arterial wall compliance after endovascular stenting. J Vasc Surg, 1994; 19: 905–911.Google Scholar
  171. 171.
    Jedwab MR and Clerc CD. A study of the geometrical and mechanical properties of a self-expanding metallic stent—theory and experiment. JAppl Biomater 1993; 4: 77–85.Google Scholar
  172. 172.
    Fallone BG, Wallace S, and Gianturco C. Elastic characteristics of the self-expanding metallic stents. Invest Radiol 1988; 23: 370–376.Google Scholar
  173. 173.
    Robinson KA, Roubin G, King S, Siegel R, Rodgers G, and Apkarian RP. Correlated microscopic observations of arterial responses to intravascular stenting. Scan Microsc 1989; 3: 665–679.Google Scholar
  174. 174.
    Sayers RD, Thompson MM, and Bell PRF. Endo-vascular stenting of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Surg 1993; 7: 225–227.Google Scholar
  175. 175.
    Balko A, Piasecki GJ, Shah DM, Carney WI, Hopkins RW, and Jackson BT. Transfemoral placement of intraluminal polyurethane prosthesis for abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Surg Res 1986; 40: 305–309.Google Scholar
  176. 176.
    Mirich D, Wright KC, Wallace S, Yoshioka T, Lawrence DD, Charnsangavij C, et al. Percutaneously placed endovascular grafts for aortic aneurysms: feasibility study. Radiology 1989; 170: 1033–1037.Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Laborde JC, Parodi JC, Clem MF, Tio FO, Barone HD, Rivera FJ, et al. Intraluminal bypass of abdominal aortic aneurysm: feasibility study. Radiology 1992; 184: 185–190.Google Scholar
  178. 178.
    Parodi JC, Palmaz JC, and Barone HD. Trans-femoral intraluminal graft implantation for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg 1991; 5: 491–499.Google Scholar
  179. 179.
    Chuter TAM, Green RM, Ouriel K, Fiore WM, and DeWeese JA. Transfemoral endovascular aortic graft placement. J Vasc Surg 1993; 18: 185–197.Google Scholar
  180. 180.
    Back MR, Kopchok GE, White RA, White G, Yu W, and Wilson SE. Endoluminal placement of PTFE graft-stent devices in a canine model. Vasc Surg 1994; 28: 44–448.Google Scholar
  181. 181.
    Tabbara M and White RA. Biologic and prosthetic materials for vascular conduits, in Vascular Surgery: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed, 1994; (Veith FJ, Hobson RW, Williams RA, and Wilson SE, eds), McGraw Hill, New York, pp 520–535.Google Scholar
  182. 182.
    Fujimoto K, Minato M, Miyamoto S, Kaneko T, Kikuchi H, Sakai K, et al. Porous polyurethane tubes as vascular graft. JAppl Biomater 1993; 4: 347–354.Google Scholar
  183. 183.
    White RA and White GH. In A Colour Atlas of Endovascular Surgery. 1990; Chapman and Hall, London, p 85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin R. Back
  • Rodney A. White

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations