Comparison of Contralateral vs Ipsilateral Vein Graft for Traumatic Vascular Injury Repair: A Cohort From PROOVIT

Noreen Siddiqi*, Daniel Lammers, Parker Hu, David Stonko, Joseph DuBose, Stuart Hurst, Zain Hashmi, Jonathan Morrison, Richard Betzold

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Traumatic injury leading to arterial damage has traditionally been repaired using autologous vein graft from the contralateral limb. This often requires a secondary surgical site and the potential of prolonged operative time for patients. We sought to assess the use of ipsilateral vs contralateral vein grafts in patients who experienced traumatic extremity vascular injury. A multicenter database was queried to identify arterial injuries requiring operative intervention with vein grafting. The primary outcome of interest was need for operative reintervention. Secondary outcomes included risk of thrombosis, infection, and intensive care unit length of stay. 358 patients (320 contralateral and 38 ipsilateral) were included in the analysis. The ipsilateral vein cohort did not display a statistically significant decrease in need for reoperation when compared to the contralateral group (11% vs 23%; OR 0.41, 95% CI −0.07-1.3; P =.14). Contralateral repair was associated with longer median intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (4.3 vs 3.1 days; P <.01).

Original languageEnglish
JournalAmerican Surgeon
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2024
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • intensive care unit
  • trauma
  • vascular surgery

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of Contralateral vs Ipsilateral Vein Graft for Traumatic Vascular Injury Repair: A Cohort From PROOVIT'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this