title: Pedal or peroneal bypass: which is better when both are patent?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We compared autogenous vein pedal and peroneal bypasses, focusing on extremities that could have a bypass to either artery.
  
  
  METHODS
  From 1985 to 1993 we performed a total of 175 pedal and 77 peroneal autogenous vein bypasses for rest pain (n = 75, 30%) and tissue loss (n = 177, 70%). One hundred ninety-six (78%) in situ saphenous vein and 56 (22%) reversed or composite vein bypasses were performed. One hundred fifty-two of these 252 bypasses were performed in extremities with both the pedal and peroneal arteries patent by arteriography. The vascular surgeon chose to perform 99 pedal and 53 peroneal vein bypasses in these 152 extremities.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The angiogram score of the outflow arteries were similar for pedal and peroneal bypasses with the Society for Vascular Surgery and the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery and modified scoring systems. At 2 years the primary and secondary patency rates for pedal bypasses (70% and 77%) were not significantly different compared with those for peroneal bypasses (60% and 72%). Limb salvage rates at 2 years were similar for pedal and peroneal bypasses for all patients (74% and 73%), patients with both pedal and peroneal arteries patent (83% and 72%), diabetics (76% and 66%), and patients with tissue necrosis (77% and 71%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Pedal and peroneal artery bypasses with equivalent angiogram scores have similar long-term graft patency and limb salvage. The choice between pedal or peroneal artery bypass should be based on the quality of vein and the surgeon's preference.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, University of Louisville School of Medicine, KY 40292.
authors.forename: T M
authors.initials: TM
authors.lastname: Bergamini
authors.forename: S M
authors.initials: SM
authors.lastname: George
authors.forename: H T
authors.initials: HT
authors.lastname: Massey
authors.forename: P K
authors.initials: PK
authors.lastname: Henke
authors.forename: T W
authors.initials: TW
authors.lastname: Klamer
authors.forename: G E
authors.initials: GE
authors.lastname: Lambert
authors.forename: J C
authors.initials: JC
authors.lastname: Banis
authors.forename: F B
authors.initials: FB
authors.lastname: Miller
authors.forename: R N
authors.initials: RN
authors.lastname: Garrison
authors.forename: J D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Richardson
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000842:Ankle / Q000098:blood supply* / Q000473:pathology / Q000503:physiopathology; D001158:Arteries / Q000601:surgery; D001166:Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical / Q000379:methods*; D016121:Brachiocephalic Veins / Q000637:transplantation*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005528:Foot / Q000098:blood supply* / Q000473:pathology / Q000503:physiopathology; D006083:Graft Occlusion, Vascular / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000503:physiopathology; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D007511:Ischemia / Q000150:complications / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009336:Necrosis; D010146:Pain / Q000209:etiology; D011182:Postoperative Care; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D011859:Radiography; D012146:Rest; D012501:Saphenous Vein / Q000637:transplantation*; D015996:Survival Rate; D016909:Tibial Arteries / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D013997:Time Factors; D014654:Vascular Patency; D014945:Wound Healing