【Abstract】 Objective To explore the feasibility and safety of the femoral vein as a vascular graft material. Methods A total of 114 specimens of lower limbs were harvested from 60 adult cadavers; the lower extremity femoral veins, popliteal vein, deep femoral vein, and the communicating branch were dissected and observed; the length of the available femoral vein, from the point at which deep femoral vein and femoral vein joint to the lower edge of abductor hiatus, and squash vein diameter were measured. Computed tomography venography (CTV) data from 120 patients with lower extremity femoral vein thrombosis were analysed, and the venous reflux pathway of the lower extremity was observed. Results The average height of male was 158.3 cm, and the available length of femoral vein was (18.8 ± 2.3) cm (relative length, 0.118 ± 0.013), and squash vein diameter was (15.8 ± 0.8) mm. The average height of female was 149.2 cm, and the available length of femoral vein was (15.1 ± 1.5) cm (relative length, 0.101 ± 0.010), and squash vein diameter was (14.0 ± 1.1) mm. There were significant differences in the length of the available femoral vein (t=6.354, P=0.000) and squash vein diameter (t=5.555, P=0.000) between male and female. Positive correlation was found between the length of the available femoral vein and height (r=0.964, P=0.000). Low correlation was found between squash vein diameter and height (r=0.382, P=0.003). Double femoral veins were found in 16 limbs (14.0%), a femoral-popliteal vein communicating branch in 48 limbs (42.1%), a deep femoral-popliteal vein communicating branch in 38 limbs (33.3%). CTV showed that great saphenous vein, femoral-popliteal, or deep femoral-popliteal vein communicating branches had compensative capacity in patients with femoral vein thrombosis. Conclusion It is reliable and safe to harvest femoral vein as a vascular graft because of the existence of the great saphenous vein and communicating branches between the popliteal vein and femoral vein or deep femoral vein.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between conventional open repair (OR) and endovascular repair (EVRAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. Methods Between March 2000 and July 2011, 48 cases of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm were treated by conventional OR in 40 cases (OR group) or by EVRAR in 8 cases (EVRAR group). There was no significant difference in age, sex, the neck length (less than 2 cm), the neck angulation of aneurysm (more than60°), il iac severe tortuosity, preoperative systol ic pressure, and preoperative comorbidity between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The blood transfusion volume, operation time, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative complications, reinterventions, and mortality were analyzed. Results There was no significant difference in 24-hour and 30-day mortality rates and non graft-related complications between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). EVRAR group was significantly better than OR group in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay (P lt; 0.05), but OR group was significantly better than EVRAR group in reinterventions and graftrelated complications (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion EVRAR has obvious advantages in blood transfusion volume, operation time, and ICU stay, so it is feasible for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with precise anatomical suitability.