Search

Objective: The study aimed to investigate the reliability of a portable toe pressure (TP) photoplethysmography device (PPG) by comparing it to a stationary laser Doppler flowmeter (LD) used in the Helsinki University Hospital. The study evaluated if lower limb arterial circulation could be reliably evaluated with the portable PPG which is more affordable and mobile than the stationary LD., Methods: TPs were measured from 102 toes of 54 patients in the vascular surgery outpatient clinic, vascular surgery ward and interventional radiology recovery ward of Helsinki University Hospital. According to the study protocol TPs were measured twice with the PPG device. If the difference between the values was over 10 mmHg, a third measurement was done and two of the closest values were selected for the final analysis. The lowest value displayed by the PPG device was 30 mmHg. Lower than 30 mmHg values were reported as 25 mmHg in the analysis. The repeatability and reliability of the PPG measurements were compared to the LD with Bland Altman plots., Results: Most patients had rest pain ( n = 29) or claudication ( n = 9). Prior to TP measurement, 24 patients had undergone lower limb revascularization through either a hybrid ( n = 3), open ( n = 10) or endovascular ( n = 11) procedure. The mean absolute difference between PPG and LD measurement values was 15 mmHg (95% confidence interval 12-18 mmHg). 87.5% of lower limbs with significant arterial insufficiency (TP <60 mmHg with LD, n = 49) had a PPG measurement value of <60 mmHg. Conversely, 84.8% of lower limbs that did not exceed the ischemia criterion of TP ≥60 mmHg with LD had a PPG measurement value of ≥60 mmHg. Mean absolute difference of two consecutive PPG measurement values was 4 mmHg (95% CI 3-5 mmHg)., Conclusions: The PPG device is a light and affordable option for the assessment of lower limb arterial circulation in primary health care. It is moderately reliable to exclude significant lower limb arterial insufficiency and may reduce unnecessary referrals to the vascular surgery clinic. The repeatability of the PPG device is satisfactory. However, it requires training to use, and the results must always be interpreted with consideration for the patient's clinical status., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: Bovine pericardial patch (BPP) is currently used in femoral angioplasty as an alternative for autologous vein patch (AVP), but studies comparing the results of the two methods are scarce. In this retrospective study, we aimed to discover the differences between BPP and AVP closure in long-term durability., Methods: This study consisted of all femoral endarterectomies with BPP closure performed in Helsinki University Hospital from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017. For comparison, the same number of consecutive patients who underwent femoral endarterectomy with AVP closure from January 1, 2014, to October 16, 2016, were reviewed. Follow-up ended December 31, 2020. The mean follow-up was 19 months (range, 0-74 months) in the BPP group and 22 months (range, 0-79 months) in the AVP group. The primary endpoint was primary patency. Secondary endpoints were restenosis at patch site detected by imaging or perioperatively, patch rupture, and deep surgical wound infection. Propensity score analysis was performed for adjustment of differences between the AVP and BPP groups., Results: Overall primary patency was superior in the AVP group compared with the BPP group: at 1 year, 96.5% vs 85.0% and at 5 years, 83.0% vs 72.3% (P = .04). In propensity score-matched pairs (n = 92), no difference was found between the groups in primary patency: 95.7% and 95.7% at 1 year and 92.5% and 78.6% at 5 years (P = .861) or in freedom from restenosis: 100% and 100% at 1 year and 89.1% and 84.0% at 5 years (P = .057). Deep wound infections occurred slightly more often after BPP closure (8%) than after AVP closure (4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .144). There were no patch ruptures in the BPP group, but in the AVP group, there were five ruptures (3.5%) (P = .024)., Conclusions: BPP is compatible to AVP in femoral endarterectomy in patency and can be regarded as the safer choice considering the risk of patch rupture., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) is a nonthermal nontumescent method of treating saphenous vein insufficiency. The feasibility and short-term results of MOCA are good, but its long-term results are unknown. A randomized study was performed to compare MOCA with endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the setting of unilateral great saphenous vein (GSV) insufficiency., Methods: Venous outpatient clinic patients with varicose veins (CEAP class C2-C4) caused by GSV insufficiency were invited to participate in the study; in total, 132 patients met the inclusion criteria and were willing to participate. Patients were randomized to treatment (2:1:1 for MOCA, EVLA, and RFA, respectively). The state of the GSV with duplex Doppler ultrasound examination and the disease-specific quality of life were assessed at 1 month, 1 year, and 3 years after the treatment., Results: Some patients declined to continue in the study after randomization; in total, 117 patients underwent treatment. At 3 years, the occlusion rate was significantly lower with MOCA than with either EVLA or RFA (82% vs 100%; P = .005). Quality of life was similar between the groups. In the MOCA group, GSVs that were larger than 7 mm in diameter preoperatively were more likely to recanalize during the follow-up period. The partial recanalizations of proximal GSV observed at 1 year progressed during the follow-up., Conclusions: MOCA is a feasible treatment option in an outpatient setting, but its technical success rates are inferior compared with endovenous thermal ablation. Its use in large-caliber veins should be considered carefully., (Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The risk of rupture for a large (≥ 55 mm) abdominal aortic aneurysm(AAA) is significant and therefore operative treatment should take place before possible aneurysm rupture. Timing of elective AAA surgery has rarely been investigated previously. The aim of this study is to evaluate success in the elective treatment process of large AAAs from referral to surgery in Helsinki University Central Hospital., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all 361 patients who were assigned for elective treatment of AAA during 2005 - 2010. We divided the patients into subgroups according to size of the aneurysm: <60 mm, 61 - 70 mm and >70 mm. The main focus was set on the preoperative period and on potential factors causing delay. End points indicating failure in the treatment process were aneurysm ruptures and deaths before surgery., Results: The median time from referral to surgery for the three subgroups was 112, 91 and 45 days respectively (p < 0,001). There were no significant differences between the treatment methods: open repair (OR) with 103 days and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with 113 days until surgery. Twenty three (6.4 %) patients were operated on emergency basis while waiting for the operation, six of them for ruptured aneurysm. There were an additional five patients with aneurysm ruptures who all died, as did four out the six operated ones., Conclusions: The whole treatment process starting from the referral should be considered in order for elective AAA treatment to succeed. Recommendations should be established for the preoperative period to guarantee rapid preoperative evaluation.