Challenges of Distal Bypass Surgery in Patients with Diabetes Patient Selection, Techniques, and Outcomes

Surgical revascularization of the lower extremity using bypass grafts to distal target arteries is an established, effective therapy for advanced ischemia. Recent multicenter data confirm the primacy of autogenous vein bypass grafting, yet there remains significant heterogeneity in the utilization, techniques, and outcomes associated with these procedures in current practice. Experienced clinical judgment, creativity, technical precision, and fastidious postoperative care are required to optimize long-term results. The diabetic patient with a critically ischemic limb offers some specific challenges; however, numerous studies demonstrate that the outcomes of vein bypass surgery in this population are excellent and define the standard of care. Technical factors, such as conduit and inflow/outflow artery selection, play a dominant role in determining clinical success. An adequate-caliber, good-quality great saphenous vein is the optimal graft for distal bypass in the leg. Alternative veins perform acceptably in the absence of the great saphenous vein, whereas prosthetic and other nonautogenous conduits have markedly inferior outcomes. Graft configuration (reversed, nonreversed, or in situ) seems to have little effect on outcome. Shorter grafts have improved patency. Inflow can be improved by surgical or endovascular means if necessary, and distal-origin grafts (eg, those arising from the superficial femoral or popliteal arteries) can perform as well as those originating from the common femoral artery. The selected outflow vessel should supply unimpeded runoff to the foot, conserve conduit length, and allow for adequate soft-tissue coverage of the graft and simplified surgical exposure. This review summarizes the available data linking patient selection and technical factors to outcomes and highlights the importance of surgical judgment and operative planning in the current practice of infrainguinal bypass surgery. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 100(5): 429-438, 2010)