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.
(Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)