Contemporary Use of the Femoropopliteal Vein in Vascular Reconstructions.

INTRODUCTION

Current practice patterns favor endovascular treatment, resulting in fewer open procedures. When needed, greater saphenous vein and/or prosthetic conduits are considered the first choice for open vascular bypass. However, there is a cohort of patients in which these conduits are either not available or not suitable to address the surgical requirements. One alternative is to use femoropopliteal vein (FPV), an often-overlooked conduit. We report on the contemporary use of FPV in a tertiary vascular institution.

METHODS

All patients who underwent FPV harvest, as defined by CPT code 35572, between 2005 and 2019 were identified. Patient demographics (sex, age, baseline laboratory values, medical co-morbidities), indication for use of FPV, complications specific to vein harvest, operative details, post-operative course, and outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety patients had harvest of FPV for creation of 123 conduits. In this study, a conduit was defined as a segment of vein used to perfuse a distinctly separate vascular bed. We identified four cohorts in which FPV was used: aorto-iliac reconstruction in 38 patients for infected graft (19), occlusive disease (8), aortitis (5), mycotic aneurysm (5), and malignancy (1); peripheral artery revascularization in 26 patients for ilio-femoral reconstruction (15), femoropopliteal reconstruction (4), upper extremity/cerebrovascular reconstruction (6), and coronary bypass (1); mesenteric revascularization in 20 patients for acute or acute on chronic ischemia (12), chronic ischemia (7) or aneurysm (1); and dialysis access in 6 patients. There was a high incidence of pre-existing comorbid conditions in all groups, but most notably those patients who underwent aorto-iliac reconstruction. Harvest-related or conduit-related complications included compartment syndrome, graft-associated hemorrhage, surgical site infection, and lymphatic complications. Primary graft patency at 3 years was 83% ± 4% (aorto-iliac), 83% ± 6% (peripheral), 100% (mesenteric), and 23% ± 19% (dialysis access, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While use of FPV has potential significant harvest-related, conduit-related, or systemic complications, FPV is useful for a variety of needs, almost universally available, and durable. In the current era where endovascular approach is the focus, FPV should not be forgotten as a potential conduit that can be used for a variety of vascular reconstruction indications.