Interposition grafting for reoperation on the common femoral artery

Abstract

Purpose: This report details our experience with common femoral artery resection and Dacron interposition grafting in the management of vascular reoperations involving the common femoral artery. Design: Retrospective review. Setting: University teaching hospital. Subjects: Consecutive reoperative patients who had common femoral artery interposition grafting for arteriosclerotic occlusive disease from 1986 to 1997. Interventions: Common femoral artery resection and interposition grafting. Main outcome measures: Operative morbidity and mortality rates and long-term patency, limb salvage, patient survival, freedom-from-graft-infection, and freedom-from-reoperation rates. Results: Ninety-nine common femoral arteries (16 bilateral) were resected and replaced with Dacron interposition grafts in 83 patients (50 male, 33 female; mean age, 65 years) who had had 237 previous ipsilateral common femoral artery operations (mean, 2.4 operations; range, 1-9 operations). Simultaneous infrainguinal bypass grafts were performed in 52 operations (53%), and 60 operations (61%) were performed in patients who had had previous ipsilateral proximal bypass grafts. Operative mortality was 2%, with a 14% rate of perioperative wound complications. Mean follow-up time was 22 months. One- and 3-year assisted primary patency rates for the interposition grafts were 90% and 77%, respectively. Both 1- and 3-year life-table–determined limb salvage rates were 95%. One- and 3-year life-table–determined freedom-from-reoperation rates were 74% and 43%, respectively. One- and 3-year life-table–determined freedom-from-infection rates were 99% and 92%, respectively. One- and 3-year life-table–determined survival rates were 82% and 73%, respectively. Conclusions: Common femoral artery resection and Dacron interposition grafting are safe, and they obviate many difficulties associated with reoperative common femoral artery surgery with satisfactory long-term results. (J Vasc Surg 1998;28:37-44)