Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Compliance properties of conduits used in vascular reconstruction

Tai, N R, Salacinski, H J, Edwards, A, Hamilton, G, Seifalian, A M·2000·Journal of British Surgery

Abstract

Background: Compliance mismatch between native artery and prosthetic graft used for infrainguinal bypass is implicated in the aetiology of graft failure. The aim was to quantify the elastic properties of a new compliant poly(carbonate)polyurethane (CPU) vascular graft, and to compare the compliance properties of grafts made from CPU, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE), Dacron and human saphenous vein with that of human muscular artery. Methods: A pulsatile flow phantom was used to perfuse vessel and prosthetic graft segments at physiological pulse pressure and flow. Intraluminal pressure was measured using a Millar Mikro-tip catheter transducer and vessel wall motion was determined with duplex ultrasonography using an echo-locked wall-tracking system. Diametrical compliance and a stiffness index were then calculated for each type of conduit over mean pressures ranging from 30 to 100 mmHg by 10-mmHg increments. Results: The compliance values of CPU and artery (mean over the pressure range) were similar (mean(s.d.) 8·1(0·4) and 8·0(5·9) per cent per mmHg × 10−2 respectively), although the elastic behaviour of artery was anisotropic unlike CPU, which was isotropic. Dacron and ePTFE grafts had lower compliance values (1·8(1·2) and 1·2(0·3) per cent per mmHg × 10−2 respectively, averaged over the pressure range). In both these cases, compliance and stiffness differed significantly from that of artery over a mean pressure range of 30–90 mmHg. Human saphenous vein exhibited anisotropic behaviour and, although compliant at low pressure (30 mmHg), was markedly incompliant at higher pressures. Conclusion: Compliant polyurethane grafts offer a greater degree of compliance match than either ePTFE or Dacron.

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01566.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Tai, N. R., Salacinski, H. J., Edwards, A., Hamilton, G., & Seifalian, A. M.
Venue
Journal of British Surgery
Published
2000-11-01
Volume
87
Issue
11
Pages
1516-1524
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2078355519
Cited by
267
References
1
FWCI
7.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Compliance properties of conduits used in vascular reconstruction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01566.x
The paper
Tai, N. R., Salacinski, H. J., Edwards, A., Hamilton, G., & Seifalian, A. M. (2000). Compliance properties of conduits used in vascular reconstruction. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01566.x

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.