The Debatable Choice of Iliac Inflow Source for Redo Femoropopliteal and Infrapopliteal Bypass.

Background: Redo area region operation is associated with a significant morbidity such as neurovascular injury, infection, and lymphorrhea. The traditional management of occluded femoropopliteal grafts often includes redissection of a scarred groin to obtain adequate inflow via the common femoral artery. These procedures are more technically demanding and require more expertise and judgment than the primary operation. We describe a case of using the ipsilateral iliac branch prosthesis of aortobifemoral bypass as inflow for iliac-peroneal bypass, avoiding the previous groin incisions, to minimize the local complications related to a redo groin dissection and to decrease the operative time required to obtain an adequate inflow source.

Case Report: An 86-year-old man was referred to our hospital with severe pain in the right lower extremity one day before the present admission. He underwent aortobifemoral bypass for Leriché syndrome, in our department, 10 years before the present admission. Eight and 9 years later, a femoral popliteal suprageniculate bypass and jump to deep femoral artery bypass (when femoropopliteal bypass was occluded) were performed with 6-mm polytetrafluoroethylene grafts, both in some other institution. The patient's right foot was colder than the left, and he had some difficulty with movement. Absence of signal Doppler continous wave at right tibial vessels was recorded (category IIA of Rutherford classification for acute limb ischemia). Computed tomography (CT) confirmed the following duplex ultrasound (US) findings: occlusion of the femoral graft and popliteal artery below the knee and preocclusive stenosis of deep femoral artery with patency of aortobifemoral bypass and peroneal artery. Taking into consideration the multiple groin scars and the occlusion of superficial femoral and popliteal arteries and preocclusive lesion of deep femoral artery, we decided to perform a sequential composite and extra anatomical bypass from the right iliac prosthesis to the peroneal artery, with graft tunnellization through the lateral groin subfascial layer. The proximal component of the graft was made with a 6-mm Dacron prosthesis routed through a suprasartorial tunnel from iliac prosthesis to the proximal great saphenous vein. Proximal anastomosis was performed in a conventional side-to-end fashion. A tunnel was created between the abdominal flank incision and the median prosthesis-vein anastomosis of the bypass under inguinal ligament laterally with respect to femoral vessels, in lateral to median route, avoiding groin scars. The vein segment was orientated in a nonreversed format, with a LeMaitre Valvulotome to secure antegrade flow. The intermediate anastomosis was performed in an end-to-end way, whereas the distal anastomosis was carried out between the vein and peroneal artery in a conventional end-to-side fashion. Immediate intraoperative and postoperative assessments of graft patency were carried out with angiography and hand-held Doppler examination, respectively. Duplex US scan was used for graft surveillance at regular intervals up to 12 months after surgery. The patient recovered at 12 months postoperatively, and the CT imaging demonstrated the good patency of the entire graft.

Conclusion: We believe that the external iliac artery (or prosthesis such as in our case) inflow should be considered selectively rather than preferentially, mostly in the subset of patients selected for reoperative distal bypass.