Direct Revascularization With the Angiosome Concept for Lower Limb Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- PMID: 26313796
- PMCID: PMC4602934
- DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001427
Direct Revascularization With the Angiosome Concept for Lower Limb Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
The angiosome concept provides practical information regarding the vascular anatomy of reconstructive and vascular surgery for the treatment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease and, particularly, critical lower limb ischemia.The aim of the study was to confirm the efficacy of direct revascularization with the angiosome concept (DR) for lower limb ischemia.Complementary manual searches were performed through the Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases.We searched all randomized and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) comparing DR with indirect revascularization (IR) (without the angiosome concept) for lower limb ischemia. Only 9 nonrandomized controlled retrospective cohort studies were found and included. Trials published in any language were included.Primary endpoints were time to limb amputation and time to wound healing. Data extraction and trial quality assessment were performed by two authors independently. A third author was consulted for disagreements settlement and quality assurance.Five NRSs involving 779 lower limbs revealed that DR significantly improved the overall survival of limbs (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.80; P < 0.001; I = 0%). In addition, DR significantly improved time to wound healing (HR 1.38; 95% CI = 1.13-1.69; P = 0.002; I = 0%, in 5 studies including 605 limbs).All included studies were retrospective comparative studies, and no consensus was obtained in describing wound conditions in the included studies.Our results suggested that treatment of lower limb ischemia using DR is more effective in salvaging limbs and healing wounds than IR is. Additional randomized controlled studies are necessary to confirm these results.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose.
Figures







References
-
- Frykberg RG, Zgonis T, Armstrong DG, et al. Diabetic foot disorders: a clinical practice guideline (2006 revision). J Foot Ankle Surg 2006; 45 suppl:S1–S66. - PubMed
-
- Norgren L, Hiatt WR, Dormandy JA, et al. Inter-Society Consensus for the Management of Peripheral Arterial Disease (TASC II). J Vasc Surg 2007; 45 suppl S:S5–S67. - PubMed
-
- Olin JW, Allie DE, Belkin M, et al. ACCF/AHA/ACR/SCAI/SIR/SVM/SVN/SVS 2010 performance measures for adults with peripheral artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures, the American College of Radiology, the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions, the Society for Interventional Radiology, the Society for Vascular Medicine, the Society for Vascular Nursing, and the Society for Vascular Surgery (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Performance Measures for Peripheral Artery Disease). J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56:2147–2181. - PubMed
-
- Cavanagh PR, Lipsky BA, Bradbury AW, et al. Treatment for diabetic foot ulcers. Lancet 2005; 366:1725–1735. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources