Outcomes of Omniflow® II prosthesis used for revascularization in the femoral tract both in infected and non-infected setting.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the outcomes of Omniflow® II prosthesis in peripheral arterial revascularization at different anatomical sites and for different indications is scarce. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the Omniflow® II used at various positions within the femoral tract both in infected and non-infected setting. METHODS: Patients who underwent reconstructive lower leg vascular surgery with implantation of an Omniflow® II from 2014 until 2021 at five medical centers were retrospectively included (N.=142). Patients were subdivided into the following categories: femoro-femoral crossover (N.=19), femoral interposition (N.=18), femoro-popliteal (above-the-knee [N.=25; AK] or below-the-knee [N.=47; BK]), and femoro-crural bypass grafts (N.=33). Primary outcome was primary patency and secondary outcomes included primary assisted patency, secondary patency, major amputation, vascular graft infection, and mortality. Outcomes were compared according to different subgroups and the surgical setting (infected versus non-infected). RESULTS: The median follow-up was 35.0 (17.5-54.3) months. Three years primary patency of 58% was observed for femoro-femoral crossover bypass, 75% for femoral interposition graft, 44% for femoro-popliteal above-the-knee bypass, 42% for femoro-popliteal below-the-knee bypass, and 27% in the femoro-crural position (P=0.006). Freedom from major amputation at three years were 84% for femoro-femoral crossover bypass, 88% for femoral interposition bypass, 90% for femoro-popliteal AK bypass, 83% for femoro-popliteal BK bypass, and 50% for femoro-crural bypass (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the safety and feasibility of the use of Omniflow® II for femoro-femoral crossover-, femoral interposition-, and femoro-popliteal (AK and BK) bypass. Omniflow® II seems to be less suitable for femoro-crural bypass with a significantly lower patency compared to other positions.

Use of Omniflow® II Biosynthetic Graft for the Treatment of Vascular Graft and Endograft Infections.

BACKGROUND: Vascular graft/endograft infection is a rare but life-threatening complication of cardiovascular surgery and remains a surgical challenge. Several different graft materials are available for the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection, each having its own advantages and disadvantages. Biosynthetic vascular grafts have shown low reinfection rates and could be a potential second best after autologous veins in the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection. Therefore, the aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and morbidity of Omniflow® II for the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the use of Omniflow® II in the abdominal and peripheral region to treat vascular graft/endograft infection between January 2014 and December 2021. Primary outcome was recurrent vascular graft infection. Secondary outcomes included primary patency, primary assisted patency, secondary patency, all-cause mortality, and major amputation. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included with a median follow-up duration of 26.5 (10.8-54.8) months. Nine (17%) grafts were implanted in intracavitary position and 43 (83%) in peripheral position. Most grafts were used as femoral interposition (n = 12, 23%), femoro-femoral crossover (n = 10, 19%), femoro-popliteal (n = 8, 15%), and aorto-bifemoral (n = 8, 15%) graft. Fifteen (29%) grafts were implanted extra-anatomically and 37 (71%) in situ. Eight patients (15%) presented with reinfection during follow-up, most of these patients received an aorto-bifemoral graft (n = 3, 38%). Intracavitary vascular grafting had a 33% (n = 3) reinfection rate and peripheral grafting 12% (n = 5; P = 0.025). The estimated primary patencies at 1, 2, and 3 years were 75%, 72%, and 72% for peripherally located grafts and 58% (at all timepoints) for intracavitary grafts (P = 0.815). Secondary patencies at 1, 2, and 3 years were 77% (at all timepoints) for peripherally located prostheses and 75% (at all timepoints) for intracavitary prostheses (P = 0.731). A significantly higher mortality during follow-up was observed in patients who received an intracavitary graft compared to patients with a peripheral graft (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the efficacy and safety of the Omniflow® II biosynthetic prosthesis for the treatment of vascular graft/endograft infection, in absence of suitable venous material, with acceptable reinfection, patency, and freedom of amputation prevalences, especially in replacing peripheral vascular graft/endograft infection. However, a control group with either venous reconstruction or another alternative graft is needed to make firmer conclusions.

Lymphatic drainage patterns from melanomas on the shoulder or upper trunk to cervical lymph nodes and implications for the extent of neck dissection.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence and pattern of cervical lymphatic drainage in patients with melanomas located on the upper limb or trunk, and to evaluate our current neck dissection protocol for those patients with a N+ neck. METHODS: Of 1192 melanoma patients who underwent sentinel node biopsy, 631 were selected with a primary tumor on the upper limb or trunk. All lymphoscintigrams, SPECT/CT images and operative reports were reviewed to determine the exact locations of sentinel nodes visualized preoperatively and dissected during operation. RESULTS: Thirty-nine (6.2 %) of 631 patients with a melanoma on the upper limb or trunk showing cervical lymph node drainage were identified. In 34 (87 %) of 39 patients, sentinel nodes were excised from level IV or Vb, and in 30 of those 39 patients simultaneous from the axilla. In the remaining five patients (13 %), sentinel nodes were collected from level IIb, level III or the suboccipital region. All collected sentinel nodes were located in the intended dissection area for N+ patients. Thirteen patients (33 %) had a total of 22 tumor-positive sentinel nodes in either the axilla (n = 10), level IV (n = 2), Vb (n = 9) or suboccipital (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of the patients with upper limb or trunk melanomas demonstrated lymphatic drainage to cervical lymph node basins, with preferential drainage to levels IV and Vb. Our current dissection protocol of levels II-V, with or without extension to the suboccipital region, in those patients with involved cervical sentinel nodes seems sufficient.