title: Dacron vs. polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for femoropopliteal bypass: a prospective randomised multicentre trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the patency of PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene) and unsealed knitted Dacron femoro-popliteal bypasses.
  
  
  METHODS
  Multi-centre prospective randomised trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  Of 203 patients randomised, 194 were included in the final analysis (103 Dacron grafts and 91 PTFE grafts). The median follow-up was 36 months (range: 6-72 months); the distal anastomosis was above-knee in 141 and below-knee in 53 cases. Univariate comparisons of patency were made by the Kaplan-Meier method, multivariate calculations on the effects of covariables by a Cox regression analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was no difference regarding primary and secondary patency or limb salvage between Dacron and PTFE. The primary 3-year patency for Dacron grafts was 64% (95% confidence interval [C.I.] 55-74%) and for PTFE grafts 61% (C.I. 49-72%). The corresponding 3-year secondary patency was 81% (C.I. 73-89%) and 75% (C.I. 65-86%) respectively, the limb salvage rate 90% (C.I. 84-96%) and 91% (C.I. 84-97%). Upon multivariate analysis below-knee anastomosis was the principal independent predictor of primary graft failure (risk ratio 1.7 [C.I. 1.05-2.8]), impaired secondary patency was associated with infragenicular bypass (risk ratio 3.3 [C.I. 1.8-6.3]) and distal gangrene (risk ratio [C.I. 1.01-3.8]p=0.048), major amputation was independently predicted by below-knee bypass, tissue necrosis, and poor run-off index.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  PTFE and Dacron are equally suitable for femoro-popliteal bypass.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Post
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kraus
authors.forename: U
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Müller-Reinartz
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Weiss
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kortmann
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Quentmeier
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Winkler
authors.forename: K J
authors.initials: KJ
authors.lastname: Husfeldt
authors.forename: J R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Allenberg
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001157:Arterial Occlusive Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D001807:Blood Vessel Prosthesis; D019917:Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D005263:Femoral Artery / Q000601:surgery; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007866:Leg; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D011093:Polyethylene Terephthalates; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene; D011150:Popliteal Artery / Q000601:surgery; D016016:Proportional Hazards Models; D011446:Prospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014654:Vascular Patency
chemical_list: D001672:Biocompatible Materials; D011093:Polyethylene Terephthalates; D011138:Polytetrafluoroethylene