Nafi Dilaver1, Christopher P Twine2, David C Bosanquet3. 1. Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK; University of Swansea, College of Medicine, Swansea, UK. 2. Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK; Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 3. Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, UK. Electronic address: davebosanquet@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The importance of the angiosome concept in tibial artery revascularisation remains controversial. The aim of this review was to assess the outcomes of direct revascularisation (revascularisation to the angiosome of tissue loss; DR) versus indirect revascularisation (IR) in infrapopliteal arteries. METHODS: A previously conducted systematic review was updated according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing DR with IR by both endovascular and surgical means for patients with localised tissue loss were included. Meta-analyses were performed to assess the effect of DR versus IR on wound healing (total and time to healing), limb salvage, mortality, and re-intervention rates, with multiple sensitivity analyses. Outcome data quality was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: Seven studies (2278 limbs) were identified in the updated search, which when combined with the previous search resulted in 22 studies, comprising 4146 limbs, being included. Wound healing rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% CI 0.39-0.68, p < 0.001), time to wound healing (standard mean difference [SMD] -1.70; 95% CI -3.34 to -0.07, p = .04) and limb salvage (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.24-0.58, p < .0001) were significantly better with DR compared with IR. Sensitivity analyses were concordant with the primary analysis for these outcomes, with the exception of the effect of wound healing rates between DR and IR, which was lost on sensitivity analysis for bypass surgery. Mode of revascularisation had no effect on mortality or on re-intervention rates. GRADE outcomes were very low. CONCLUSION: DR of the tibial vessels appears to result in improved wound healing and limb salvage rates compared with IR, with no effect on mortality or re-intervention rates. For surgical revascularisation the importance of DR appears to be lost for wound healing. When possible, these low quality data suggests DR should be undertaken in preference to IR. Crown
BACKGROUND: The importance of the angiosome concept in tibial artery revascularisation remains controversial. The aim of this review was to assess the outcomes of direct revascularisation (revascularisation to the angiosome of tissue loss; DR) versus indirect revascularisation (IR) in infrapopliteal arteries. METHODS: A previously conducted systematic review was updated according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing DR with IR by both endovascular and surgical means for patients with localised tissue loss were included. Meta-analyses were performed to assess the effect of DR versus IR on wound healing (total and time to healing), limb salvage, mortality, and re-intervention rates, with multiple sensitivity analyses. Outcome data quality was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: Seven studies (2278 limbs) were identified in the updated search, which when combined with the previous search resulted in 22 studies, comprising 4146 limbs, being included. Wound healing rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.51; 95% CI 0.39-0.68, p < 0.001), time to wound healing (standard mean difference [SMD] -1.70; 95% CI -3.34 to -0.07, p = .04) and limb salvage (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.24-0.58, p < .0001) were significantly better with DR compared with IR. Sensitivity analyses were concordant with the primary analysis for these outcomes, with the exception of the effect of wound healing rates between DR and IR, which was lost on sensitivity analysis for bypass surgery. Mode of revascularisation had no effect on mortality or on re-intervention rates. GRADE outcomes were very low. CONCLUSION: DR of the tibial vessels appears to result in improved wound healing and limb salvage rates compared with IR, with no effect on mortality or re-intervention rates. For surgical revascularisation the importance of DR appears to be lost for wound healing. When possible, these low quality data suggests DR should be undertaken in preference to IR. Crown