Iliofemoral versus femorofemoral bypass: the case for an individualized approach

The treatment of unilateral iliac occlusion remains controversial. We report our experience with femorofemoral bypass (FF) and iliofemoral bypass (IF). One hundred sixty-two FFs and 82 IFs were performed during a 25-year period. Demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Operative indications included claudication in 32.1% of FFs and 19.5% of IFs, rest pain in 26.5% of FFs and 36.6% of IFs, ulcer in 8.0% of FFs and 3.7% of IFs, gangrene 13.6% of FFs and 23.2% of IFs, and acute thrombosis in 13.0% of FFs and 3.7% of IFs. Five-year primary and secondary patency rates for all FFs were 56.9% and 65.4% respectively. Those for all IFs were 74.9% and 79.2%. The primary patency rate of FF performed for chronic arterial occlusive disease was 73.3% at 3 years and 60.4% at 5 years and for IF it was 73.4% at 3 years. In the absence of prior arterial surgery in the groin, the primary patency rates of bypasses for chronic arterial occlusive disease were 78.3% for FF and 86.8% for IF at 4 years. Distal endarterectomy and acute ischemia adversely affected patency. The operative mortality rate was 6.2% for FF and 3.7% for IF. Eleven wound complications occurred in the FF group. Seven patients underwent graft removal without limb loss. One minor wound problem occurred in the IF group. Iliofemoral bypass avoids operation on an asymptomatic limb; FF avoids entry in the abdomen or retroperitoneum and can be performed under local anesthesia. In patients in whom either IF or FF is applicable, the choice between these two procedures should be individualized with these factors in mind.