Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 520

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Saphenous Vein Versus PTFE for Above-Knee Femoropopliteal Bypass. A Review of the Literature

Open access
Klinkert, P, Post, P.N, Breslau, P.J, van Bockel, J.H·2004·European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery

Abstract

The autogenous saphenous vein is considered the best bypass graft material for arterial bypasses below the inguinal ligament. However, a synthetic graft or prosthesis is considered an acceptable alternative, especially when the distal anastomosis is situated above the knee. Some studies even suggest that patency rates for vein and synthetic grafts are comparable, whereas others indicate that a vein graft is superior to a prosthetic graft, even above the knee. To test the hypothesis that both vein grafts and synthetic prostheses are equally beneficial in the above-knee position, we performed a systematic review of available studies comparing the patency of saphenous vein and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) as bypass material. English and German medical literature from 1966 to 2002 was searched using Medline, and 25 articles meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected. The patency of venous bypasses was superior to that of PTFE bypasses at all time intervals studied. After 2 years, the primary patency rate of venous bypasses was 81% as compared to 67% for PTFE bypasses, and after 5 years it was 69 and 49%, respectively. After 5 years, the secondary patency of PTFE bypasses reached 60%. When only randomized trials were considered, venous bypasses were again superior to PTFE bypasses at all intervals studied. After 2 years, the primary patency rate of venous and PTFE bypasses was 80 and 69%, respectively, and after 5 years it was 74 and 39%, respectively. Since both randomized and retrospective studies comparing venous with PTFE bypasses showed that vein grafts were 'better' than PTFE prostheses, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two types of graft material was rejected (p=0.008). We conclude from this systematic review that if a saphenous vein is available, a venous bypass should be chosen at all times, even if patients have an anticipated short life expectancy (<2 years). If the saphenous vein is absent or not suitable for bypass grafting, PTFE is a good alternative as bypass material.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejvs.2003.12.027

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 520

Metadata

Authors
Klinkert, P., Post, P. N., Breslau, P. J., & van Bockel, J. H.
Venue
European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-04
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
357-362
ISSN
1078-5884 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995677231
Cited by
520
References
0
FWCI
14.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Saphenous Vein Versus PTFE for Above-Knee Femoropopliteal Bypass. A Review of the Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejvs.2003.12.027
The paper
Klinkert, P., Post, P. N., Breslau, P. J., & van Bockel, J. H. (2004). Saphenous Vein Versus PTFE for Above-Knee Femoropopliteal Bypass. A Review of the Literature. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2003.12.027

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.