Outcomes of Popliteal Artery Injuries Repair: Autologous Vein versus Prosthetic Interposition Grafts.

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to compare wound infection, graft infection, and secondary amputation rates in patients who had popliteal artery injury repair with interposition vein versus prosthetic grafts.

METHODS

This retrospective comparative study included all adult patients (>18 years) who had interposition grafting for popliteal artery injuries between January 2008 and August 2018 at a university hospital. Patients were divided into 2 groups. Popliteal arteries were repaired with venous graft in Group "A" and with prosthetic graft in Group "B." The outcome measures were wound infection, graft infection, and secondary amputation rates.

RESULTS

Forty patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two patients had arterial repair with venous while 18 with polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. All were male with median age of 32 (interquartile range [IQR] 19.5) years. Both groups were comparable in terms of median age (32.5 [19] vs. 30.5 [23]), Mangled Extremity Severity Score (6 [5] vs. 7 [7]), median hospital stay (7 [5] vs. 7 [9] days), and perioperative complications (2/22 vs. 3/18). In Group "A," no patient had graft infection or secondary amputation while in Group "B," 1 patient had secondary amputation and another had graft infection (P > 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no statistical difference in secondary amputation rate, wound infection, or graft infection in patients undergoing popliteal artery repair with interposition vein versus prosthetic grafts in trauma setting.