Dacron® vs. PTFE as bypass materials in peripheral vascular surgery - Systematic review and meta-analysis

Show simple item record

dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.15488/1852
dc.identifier.uri http://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/1877
dc.contributor.author Roll, Stephanie
dc.contributor.author Müller-Nordhorn, Jacqueline
dc.contributor.author Keil, Thomas
dc.contributor.author Scholz, Hans
dc.contributor.author Eidt, Daniela
dc.contributor.author Greiner, Wolfgang
dc.contributor.author Willich, Stefan N.
dc.date.accessioned 2017-09-07T13:27:56Z
dc.date.available 2017-09-07T13:27:56Z
dc.date.issued 2008
dc.identifier.citation Roll, S.; Müller-Nordhorn, J.; Keil, T.; Scholz, H.; Eidt, D. et al.: Dacron® vs. PTFE as bypass materials in peripheral vascular surgery - Systematic review and meta-analysis. In: BMC Surgery 8 (2008), No. 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-8-22
dc.description.abstract Background: In peripheral vascular bypass surgery different synthetic materials are available for bypass grafting. It is unclear which of the two commonly used materials, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or polyester (Dacron®) grafts, is to be preferred. Thus, the aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of these two prosthetic bypass materials (Dacron® and PTFE). Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Cochrane-Library – CENTRAL, EMBASE and other databases for relevant publications in English and German published between 1999 and 2008. Only randomized controlled trials were considered for inclusion. We assessed the methodological quality by means of standardized checklists. Primary patency was used as the main endpoint. Random-effect meta-analysis as well as pooling data in life table format was performed to combine study results. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included. Two trials showed statistically significant differences in primary patency, one favouring Dacron® and one favouring PTFE grafts, while 7 trials did not show statistically significant differences between the two materials. Meta-analysis on the comparison of PTFE vs. Dacron® grafts yielded no differences with regard to primary patency rates (hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval [0.85;1.28]), no significant heterogeneity (p = 0.32, I2 = 14%)). Similarly, there were no significant differences with regard to secondary patency rates. Conclusion: Systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing Dacron® and PTFE as bypass materials for peripheral vascular surgery showed no evidence of an advantage of one synthetic material over the other. eng
dc.description.sponsorship DIMDI
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher London : BioMed Central Ltd.
dc.relation.ispartofseries BMC Surgery 8 (2008)
dc.rights CC BY 2.0 Unported
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
dc.subject dacron eng
dc.subject politef eng
dc.subject biomaterial eng
dc.subject polyethylene terephthalate eng
dc.subject artery occlusion eng
dc.subject article eng
dc.subject clinical trial eng
dc.subject controlled clinical trial eng
dc.subject extracorporeal circulation eng
dc.subject femoral artery eng
dc.subject human eng
dc.subject intermethod comparison eng
dc.subject limb salvage eng
dc.subject quality control eng
dc.subject randomized controlled trial eng
dc.subject vascular patency eng
dc.subject vascular surgery eng
dc.subject blood vessel prosthesis eng
dc.subject chemistry eng
dc.subject comparative study eng
dc.subject meta analysis eng
dc.subject peripheral vascular disease eng
dc.subject physiology eng
dc.subject review eng
dc.subject Biocompatible Materials eng
dc.subject Blood Vessel Prosthesis eng
dc.subject Humans eng
dc.subject Peripheral Vascular Diseases eng
dc.subject Polyethylene Terephthalates eng
dc.subject Polytetrafluoroethylene eng
dc.subject Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic eng
dc.subject Vascular Patency eng
dc.subject.ddc 610 | Medizin, Gesundheit ger
dc.title Dacron® vs. PTFE as bypass materials in peripheral vascular surgery - Systematic review and meta-analysis eng
dc.type Article
dc.type Text
dc.relation.issn 14712482
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-8-22
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume 8
dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage 22
dc.description.version publishedVersion
tib.accessRights frei zug�nglich

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s):

Show simple item record


Search the repository


My Account

Usage Statistics