OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of endovascular profunda femoral artery revascularization (ePFR) with ePFR and concurrent endovascular femoropopliteal revascularization (eFPR). METHODS: A retrospective review of the consecutive patients with PFA and femoropopliteal vaso-occulsive disease who underwent ePFR or ePFR + eFPR for severe limb ischemia was performed. RESULTS: A total of 18 ePFRs and 26 ePFR + eFPRs were performed; 17 (94%) ePFRs and 22 (85%) ePFR + eFPRs were technically successful. The 12-month survival free from amputation and reintervention rates following isolated ePFR were 78% and 72%, respectively, and following ePFR + eFPR were 96% and 81%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the survival free from amputation (P = .4) or reintervention (P = .91) rates between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: These contemporary data suggest isolated ePFRs and ePFR + eFPRs are associated with good and comparable early limb salvage rates.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of endovascular profunda femoral artery revascularization (ePFR) with ePFR and concurrent endovascular femoropopliteal revascularization (eFPR). METHODS: A retrospective review of the consecutive patients with PFA and femoropopliteal vaso-occulsive disease who underwent ePFR or ePFR + eFPR for severe limb ischemia was performed. RESULTS: A total of 18 ePFRs and 26 ePFR + eFPRs were performed; 17 (94%) ePFRs and 22 (85%) ePFR + eFPRs were technically successful. The 12-month survival free from amputation and reintervention rates following isolated ePFR were 78% and 72%, respectively, and following ePFR + eFPR were 96% and 81%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the survival free from amputation (P = .4) or reintervention (P = .91) rates between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: These contemporary data suggest isolated ePFRs and ePFR + eFPRs are associated with good and comparable early limb salvage rates.