Skip to main content

Analysis and Follow-up of 186 Alternative Bypasses

  • Conference paper
Cardiovascular Surgery 1980
  • 48 Accesses

Abstract

Primarily poor risk patients, or patients with infection of the prosthesis, presented the indication for an extra-anatomic bypass, both in the aortoiliac region and in lesions of the subclavian artery (1, 2, 5, 6, 10). Long-term observations have proven that compared with the direct reconstruction the femorofemoral and the carotido-subclavial bypass achieve the same good results in the long run with a significant decrease of operative risk (1, 3, 7–9).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blaisdell FW, Carson SN (1979) Alternatives to direct surgery of aortoiliac disease. In: Bergan JJ, Yao JST (eds) Surgery of the aorta and its body branches. Grune & Stratton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blaisdell FW, De Mattei GA, Gauder PJ (1961) Extraperitoneal thoracic aorta to femoral bypass graft as replacement for an infected aortic bifurcation prosthesis. Am J Surg 102:583

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Davis RC, O’Hara ET, Mannik JA, et al. (1972) Broadened indications for femorofemoral grafts. Surgery 72:990

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Flanigan DP, Pratt DG, Goodreau JJ, et al. (1978) Hemodynamic and angiographic guidelines in the selection of patients for femorofemoral bypass. Arch Surg 113:1257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Freeman NE, Leeds FH (1952) Operations on large arteries. Calif Med 77:229

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hafner CD (1976) Subclavian steal syndrome; a 12-Year experience. Arch Surg 111:1074

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Logerfo FW, Mannick JA, et al. (1977) A comparison of the late patency rates of axillobilateral femoral and axillounilateral femoral grafts. Surgery 81:33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Raithel D (1980) Analysis of 81 femorofemoral grafts. Vasc Surg 14:73

    Google Scholar 

  9. Raithel D, Meister R (1979) Spätergebnisse nach Korrektur von uni- und bilate-ralen Beckenarterienverschlüssen mittels extraanatomischer Umleitung. In: Hild R, Spaan G (eds) Therapiekontrolle in der Angiologie. Witzstrock, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vetto RM (1962) The treatment of unilateral artery obstruction utilizing femorofemoral graft. Surgery 52:342

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1981 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Raithel, D. (1981). Analysis and Follow-up of 186 Alternative Bypasses. In: Bircks, W., Ostermeyer, J., Schulte, H.D. (eds) Cardiovascular Surgery 1980. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-68172-1_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-68172-1_19

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-68174-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-68172-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics