Background. A prospective, randomized trial was conducted to compare Dacron with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) in reconstructive aortoiliac surgery. No comparable trial with a prospective, randomized design with a comparable number of patients or an equal long-term follow-up period can be found in the literature. Methods. Between 1984 and 1989, 165 patients were randomized for either Dacron or ePTFE on the basis of age, sex, indication for surgery, diabetes, nicotine consumption, runoff, and operative approach. The two groups were well matched for randomization criteria, as well as the incidence of aneurysms. Results. No statistically significant difference was found between the two graft materials in terms of patency rates (corrected 3-year patency rates: Dacron = 95% vs ePTFE = 95%; Breslow, p = 0.83; Mantel-Cox, p = 0.74). Subgroup analysis comparing long-term patency rates of the two graft materials and relating them to poor runoff, good runoff, aneurysms, and arterial occlusive disease also failed to show any significant differences between ePTFE and Dacron. Early graft failure (n = 6; 3.6% of the patient population; p = 0.045) and severe abdominal graft infection (n = 3; 1.8% of the total population) were seen only in ePTFE grafts. However, these did not affect the corrected long-term patency rate of ePTFE grafts. There were five late graft failures with PTFE (3.0%) and four with Dacron (2.4%). Conclusions. Graft materials currently available for aortoiliac repair were comparable in terms of corrected long-term patency rates. The alleged advantages of PTFE were not confirmed by our data. PTFE grafts were associated with a higher rate of complications, and more redo operations were required to duplicate the results obtained with Dacron.
|Number of pages||8|
|Publication status||Published - Jan 1 1992|
ASJC Scopus subject areas