Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 Oct:248:116413.
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2025.116413. Epub 2025 May 15.

Original scientific paper in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes with autologous versus prosthetic repair of traumatic abdominal vascular injuries: a 10-year review of the PROOVIT registry

Collaborators, Affiliations
Comparative Study

Original scientific paper in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes with autologous versus prosthetic repair of traumatic abdominal vascular injuries: a 10-year review of the PROOVIT registry

Negar Nekooei et al. Am J Surg. 2025 Oct.

Erratum in

Abstract

Purpose: Abdominal vascular injury (AVI) often coincides with bowel injury and abdominal contamination. Prosthetic materials may be necessary for vascular reconstruction, but outcomes are poorly understood. We examined outcomes in patients undergoing autologous vs. prosthetic open repair of AVI using a national database.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study (2013-2023) utilized the PROOVIT registry. Patients with abdominal aorta, inferior vena cava, iliac artery/vein, renal vein, or portal vein injuries who underwent open repair and survived ≥72 ​h were included. Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed the association between repair type and in-hospital vascular complications, including re-intervention, amputation, and bowel resection, as well as re-intervention outcomes specifically. Post-discharge data was also reviewed.

Results: A total of 142 patients met inclusion criteria, with 124 (87.3%) undergoing autologous repair, primarily as primary repairs with only 5 autologous vein grafts, and 18 (12.7%) undergoing prosthetic repair, including synthetic grafts and bovine pericardial patches, predominantly for arterial injuries (iliac artery, abdominal aorta). In univariate analysis, no significant differences were observed in in-hospital vascular complications, re-intervention, and infection. In adjusted analysis, prosthetic repairs showed a higher risk of in-hospital vascular complications (aOR 5.253, p ​= ​0.017), but comparable risk of re-interventions (aOR 3.046, p ​= ​0.138). Follow-up data (N ​= ​36) revealed 2 complications (5.6%): one infection (autologous) and one thrombosis (prosthetic). Notably, no prosthetic repair required revision due to infection, either in-hospital or during extended follow-up.

Conclusions: Prosthetic repairs may be associated with higher overall complication rates compared to autologous repairs. However, despite the increased complexity of prosthetic repairs and adjustment for injury severity, the autologous cohort did not demonstrate a clear advantage in terms of re-intervention rates. Future studies with more homogeneous cohorts are needed to further confirm or refute the impact of different graft materials on patient outcomes.

Keywords: Autologous repair; PROOVIT; Prosthetic repair; Synthetic graft; Vascular trauma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this study.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources