Vascular surgery and the Internet: A poor source of patient-oriented information

AbstractObjective: Increasing numbers of patients use the Internet to obtain medical information. The Internet is easily accessible, but available information is under no guidelines or regulations. We sought to evaluate the type, quality, and focus of vascular disease information presented on the Internet and the role in patient education with simple search techniques. Methods: The arbitrarily chosen search phrases “abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA),” “carotid surgery (CEA),” “claudication surgery,” and “leg gangrene surgery” were entered into five common Internet search engines. No attempt was made to refine searches. As indicated by the search engines, the 50 most commonly encountered web sites for both AAA and CEA were reviewed. The first 25 claudication sites and the first 25 gangrene sites were combined for a total of 50 leg ischemia (LIS) sites. An information score (IS) was developed as a weighted score ranging from 0 (poor) to 100 (outstanding) and was designed to assess how well the web page educated the patient about the disease, the treatment options, and the medical and surgical complications. Each vascular surgery web site was classified according to the author, the referenced information source, and the therapeutic recommendations. This was followed by an evaluation of each web site with the IS independently scored by two observers. Results: Of the 150 web sites, 146 were accessible. Ninety-six sites (65.8%) had no useful patient-oriented information (IS < 10). The mean IS and the ranges were: AAA, 14.9 (0 to 72.0); CEA, 17.5 (0 to 77.0); and LIS, 12.2 (0 to 44.5; P = .9). The mean IS of the 59 sites with scores of more than 10 were: AAA, 39.8 (n = 17); CEA, 44.8 (n = 19); and LIS, 24.8 (n = 23; P < .01, as compared with LIS scores). Differences in IS between observers were not significant (P = .9). Misleading or unconventional care recommendations were recognized in one AAA site (1 of 47, 2.1%), two CEA sites (2 of 49, 4.1%), and 13 LIS sites (13 of 50, 26.0%). The Joint Vascular Societies web page was identified only as a tertiary link. Conclusion: Patient-oriented vascular surgery information, for common vascular diseases, is difficult to find on the Internet. The overall quality is poor, and information is difficult to obtain in part because of the large number of irrelevant sites. Of the sites that were relevant to patient education (33%), one third presented information that was classified by the authors as misleading or unconventional. This was most apparent in the leg ischemia sites. The Internet is a poor overall source of patient-oriented vascular surgery information and education. Focused and refined searches and improvements in search engines and educational web sites may yield improved information. Public and medical community awareness needs to be improved regarding the severe limitations of the Internet as an information resource. (J Vasc Surg 1999;30:84-91.

Choice of autogenous conduit for lower extremity vein graft revisions

AbstractBackground: Surgical revision to repair stenosis is necessary in about 20% of lower extremity vein grafts (LEVGs). Alternate conduit, especially arm vein, is often necessary to achieve a policy of all-autogenous revisions. Although basilic vein harvest necessitates deep exposure in proximity to major nerves, it typically uses a large vein unaffected by prior intravenous lines and as such appears ideally suited for revisions in which a segmental interposition conduit is needed for revision within the graft or for extension to a more proximal inflow or distal outflow site. In this report, we describe our experience with the use of the basilic vein for LEVG revisions compared with other sources of autogenous conduit. Methods: All patients who underwent LEVG were placed in a duplex scan surveillance program. LEVGs that developed a focal area of increased velocity or uniformly low velocities throughout the graft with appropriate lesions confirmed with angiography were candidates for revision. All patients who underwent graft revision with basilic vein segments from January 1, 1990, to September 1, 2001, were identified, and their courses were reviewed for subsequent adverse events (further revision or occlusion) and complications of harvest. These revisions were compared with revisions in which cephalic and saphenous vein were used. Results: One hundred thirty basilic veins were used to revise 122 LEVGs. The mean follow-up period after revision was 28 ± 27 months. Ninety-three grafts (71%) remained patent with no further revision, and 37 grafts (29%) either needed additional revisions (22 grafts) or were occluded (15 grafts). Only four of these adverse events (11%) were directly attributed to the basilic vein segment. Ten of 43 grafts revised with cephalic vein (23%) were either revised or occluded, of which three were related to the cephalic vein segment (P = not significant, compared with basilic vein). Twenty-four of 81 grafts revised with saphenous vein (30%) were either revised or occluded, of which 11 were attributed to the saphenous vein segment (P < .01, compared with basilic vein). Two patients (1.5%) had complications from basilic vein harvest (one hematoma, one arterial injury). No neurologic injuries resulted from basilic vein harvest. Conclusion: The basilic vein is a reliable and durable conduit when used to segmentally revise LEVGs. Stenoses rarely occur within interposed basilic vein segments, and excellent freedom from subsequent revision or occlusion is possible. We conclude the basilic vein can be safely harvested with minimal complications and is ideally suited for use as a short segment interposition graft for LEVG revision. (J Vasc Surg 2002;36:238-44.

Hypothenar hammer syndrome: Proposed etiology

AbstractPurpose: Finger ischemia caused by embolic occlusion of digital arteries originating from the palmar ulnar artery in a person repetitively striking objects with the heel of the hand has been termed hypothenar hammer syndrome (HHS). Previous reports have attributed the arterial pathology to traumatic injury to normal vessels. A large experience leads us to hypothesize that HHS results from trauma to intrinsically abnormal arteries. Methods: We reviewed the arteriography, histology, and clinical outcome of all patients treated for HHS in a university clinical research center study of hand ischemia, which prospectively enrolled more than 1300 subjects from 1971 to 1998. Results: Twenty-one men had HHS. All had occupational (mechanic, carpenter, etc) or avocational (woodworker) exposure to repetitive palmar trauma. All patients underwent upper-extremity and hand arteriography, unilateral in eight patients (38%) and bilateral in 13 patients (62%). By means of arteriogram, multiple digital artery occlusions were shown in the symptomatic hand, with either segmental ulnar artery occlusion in the palm or characteristic “corkscrew” elongation, with alternating stenoses and ectasia. Similar changes in the contralateral asymptomatic (and less traumatized) hand were shown by means of 12 of 13 bilateral arteriograms (92%). Twenty-one operations, consisting of segmental ulnar artery excision in the palm and vein grafting, were performed on 19 patients. Histology was compatible with fibromuscular dysplasia with superimposed trauma. Patency of arterial repairs at 2 years was 84%. One patient (5%) required amputative debridement of necrotic finger tips. No other tissue loss occurred. There have been no recurrences of ischemia in patients with patent bypass grafts. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest reported group of HHS patients. The characteristic angiographic appearance, histologic findings, and striking incidence of bilateral abnormalities in patients with unilateral symptoms lead us to conclude that HHS occurs when persons with preexisting palmar ulnar artery fibrodysplasia experience repetitive palmar trauma. This revised theory for the etiology of HHS explains why HHS does not develop in most patients with repetitive palmar trauma. (J Vasc Surg 2000;31:104-13.

Comparison of axillofemoral and aortofemoral bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease

AbstractPurpose: A comparison of aortofemoral bypass grafting (AOFBG) and axillofemoral bypass grafting (AXFBG) for occlusive disease performed by the same surgeons during a defined interval forms the basis for this report.Methods: Data regarding all patients who underwent AOFBG or AXFBG for lower-extremity ischemia caused by aortoiliac occlusive disease were prospectively entered into a computerized vascular registry. The decision to perform AOFBG rather than AXFBG was based on assessment of surgical risk and the surgeon's preference. This report describes results for surgical morbidity, mortality, patency, limb salvage, and patient survival for procedures performed from January 1988 through December 1993.Results: We performed 108 AXFBGs and 139 AOFBGs. AXFBG patients were older (mean age, 68 years compared with 58 years for AOFBG, p < 0.001), more often had heart disease (84% compared with 38%, p < 0.001), and more often underwent surgery for limb-salvage indications (80% compared with 42%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in operative mortality (AXFBG, 3.4%; AOFBG, <1.0%, p = NS), but major postoperative complications occurred more frequently after AOFBG (AXFBG, 9.2%; AOFBG, 19.4%; p < 0.05). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 83 months (mean, 27 months). Five-year life-table primary patency, limb salvage, and survival rates were 74%, 89%, and 45% for AXFBG and 80%, 79%, and 72% for AOFBG, respectively. Although the patient survival rate was statistically lower with AXFBG, primary patency and limb salvage rates did not differ when compared with AOFBG.Conclusion: When reserved for high-risk patients with limited life expectancy, the patency and limb salvage results of AXFBG are equivalent to those of AOFBG. (J VASC SURG 1996;23:263-71.

Corrigendum to 'Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Vascular Graft and Endograft Infections' [European Journal of Vascular &amp; Endovascular Surgery 59/3 (2020) 339-384]

peer reviewe

Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2020 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Vascular Graft and Endograft Infections.

peer reviewe