Prosthetic vascular infection complicated or not by aortoenteric fistula: comparison of treatment with and without cryopreserved allograft (homograft).
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 12713780.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
in patients with vascular prosthesis infection, to compare surgical outcome and long-term results of cryopreserved allograft implantations to conventional surgery. retrospective study. two asynchronous series of 44 [series I: 1980-1994; 8 patients with aortoenteric fistula (AEF)] and 22 (series II: 1994-1997; 4 patients with AEF) patients were treated for prosthesis infection. All patients had prosthesis excision. In series I, there were 4 in situ reparations, 26 extra-anatomic bypass, 13 excision only, and one death at laparotomy. In series II, in situ cryopreserved allografts were implanted in all patients. operative mortality was 16% in series I and 13.6% in series II. For AEF patients, mortality was 37% in series I and 50% in series II. Among hospital survivors, infection-related late mortality was 13.5% in series I and 5% in series II. For AEF patients, late mortality was 20% in series I and 50% in series II. Incidence of reoperations was 54% in series I and 10.5% in series II (p<0.01). Hospital stay was 47.2+/-26.4 days in series I and 16.6+/-11.5 days in series II (p<0.001). compared to conventional treatment, incidence of reoperations and length of hospital stay are significantly decreased after cryopreserved allograft implantation. However, closure of aortic stump and extra-anatomic bypass gives better results for patients with AEF.
Medical subject headings
- Blood Vessel Prosthesis
- Cryopreservation
- Prosthesis-Related Infections