Crossover iliofemoral bypass grafting for treatment of unilateral iliac atherosclerotic disease

AbstractPurpose: In patients with unilateral iliac disease, a less invasive procedure than aortobifemoral bypass grafting may be desirable, especially in poor-risk patients or when sexual dysfunction is feared. In these cases, femorofemoral (FF) bypass grafting is often proposed. Compared with FF bypass grafting, iliofemoral (IF) bypass grafting avoids bilateral exposure of the groins, which may reduce the risk of infection. When the primitive iliac artery is occluded from its origin or heavily calcified, one may use the contralateral artery as inflow, after a small retroperitoneal exposure, to perform a crossover iliofemoral (CIF) bypass grafting procedure, through the Retzius space. Our 10-year experience with CIF bypass grafting in a select group of patients was studied. Methods: Between 1986 and 1996, 36 patients underwent CIF bypass grafting for symptomatic unilateral iliac occlusion or stenosis. All patients were examined by means of Doppler ultrasound scanning and underwent bilateral multiplane angiography. Patients were considered for this procedure when the ipsilateral common iliac artery was occluded from its origin or was diffusely and heavily calcified. The decision to perform a CIF bypass grafting procedure was made when no significant disease of the contralateral common iliac artery was seen, and patients who had features of contralateral iliac disease were excluded. The main outcomes were perioperative mortality and morbidity, long-term primary and secondary patency rates, and limb salvage rate. Results: The study included 31 men and five women, with a mean age of 58.8 years. Indications for bypass grafting were disabling claudication (26 of 36 patients, 72%) and limb-threatening ischemia (10 of 26 patients, 28%). Twelve procedures were performed simultaneously: endarterectomy of the recipient common femoral artery (n = 3), femoropopliteal bypass grafting (n = 4, 11.1%), profundoplasty (n = 4, 11%), and right internal carotid endarterectomy (n = 1). New postoperative erectile dysfunction did not develop in any of the patients. The survival rate was 97.3% at 1 year and 68.5% at 5 years. The primary and secondary patency rates were 94% and 100%, respectively, at 1 year and 76.7% and 95%, respectively, at 5 years. The limb salvage rate was 100% at 1 year and 87% at 3 years. Conclusion: The operative mortality associated with CIF is low. The long-term primary and secondary patency rates are satisfactory, and they are lower than those reported for aortobifemoral bypass grafting. This procedure does not preclude a later performance of an aortobifemoral bypass grafting procedure. CIF bypass grafting is not only suitable for poor-risk patients with a limited life expectancy who have the appropriate arterial anatomy, but also may be warranted for young patients in whom erectile dysfunction is feared. (J Vasc Surg 1999;30:693-700.