Tissue reaction to the implantation of the venous wall of synthetic and biological prosthesis


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Relevance
Problem of choosing graft for shunting still remains in vascular surgery.
The purpose of the study
To compare tissue reaction of an vein wall to implantation of synthetic and biological endoprostheses.
Materials and methods
The analysis of the pilot study carried out on 30 rabbits, divided into two treatment groups of 15 animals
each. In the first group in the wall of the inferior vena cava implanted synthetic polytetrafluoroethylene prosthesis, the second -
a biological prosthesis of the internal thoracic arteries bull. Lots of inferior vena cava in a place with an implanted prosthesis
subjected to histological examination on the 14th, 21th and 30th day after surgery. The drugs were studied by light microscopy after
staining with hematoxylin-eosin. Morphometric study was carried out, which consists in a certain proportion of the cell structure of
the connective tissue.
Results and their discussion
The inflammatory reaction in the vein wall synthetic prosthesis on the 14th day of 1.14 times on day
21 to 1.53 times, and on the 30th day of 1.52 is less pronounced than the implantation of a biological prosthesis. The response to a
biological graft vein wall at day 14 and later on the 30th day and is expressed very strongly represented as a significant inflammatory
changes with granulomatosis and immunomorphological shear to form the bor
der with graft lymphoid follicles.
Conclusion
When femoropopliteal bypass slot below the knee, in the absence of adequate autologous vein diameter
should be used combined with a synthetic PTFE prosthesis autovenous inserted into the distal anastomosis.
Keywords
tissue reaction, vein, polytetrafluoroethylene prosthesis, biological prosthesis of internal thoracic arteries
bull.

About the authors

Курский государственный медицинский университет, ул. К.Маркса, д.3, Курск, 305041, Российская
Федерация

Author for correspondence.
Email: admin@vestnik-surgery.com
– д.м.н., проф., зав. кафедрой общей хирургии Курского государственного медицинского университета

Орловский государственный университет, Медицинский институт, Российская Федерация

Email: admin@vestnik-surgery.com
д.н.м., проф. зав. кафедрой общей патологии и физиологии Орловского государственного университета.

Курский государственный медицинский университет, ул. К.Маркса, д.3, Курск, 305041, Российская
Федерация

Email: admin@vestnik-surgery.com
соискатель кафедры общей хирургии Курского государственного 

медицинского университета.

References

  2. Barbarash L.S., Ivanov S.V., Zhuravleva I.Yu., Anufriev
  3. A.I., Kazachek Ya.V., Kudriavtzeva Yu.A.,Zinetz M.G. 12
  4. letniy opyt ispol'zovaniya bioprotezov dlya zameshcheniya
  5. infraingvinal'nykh arteriy. Angiologiya i sosudistaya
  6. khirurgiya[Twelve-year experience of bioprosthesis
  7. implantation into infrainguinal arteries. Angiology and
  8. Vascular Surgery]. 2006; 3: 91-97 (in Russ.).
  10. Barbarash L. S., Burkov N. N.,
  11. Kudryavtseva Yu.
  12. A., Anufriev A. I., Zhuravleva I. Yu. Sravnitel'nyy
  13. analiz primeneniya bioprotezov arteriy s razlichnoy
  14. antitromboticheskoy modifikatsiey. Angiologiya i
  15. sosudistaya khirurgiya[Comparative analysis of arterial
  16. bioprostheses with various antithrombotic modification.
  17. Angiology and Vascular Surgery]. 2012; 2: 21-25. (in Russ.).
  19. Burkov N.N., Burkova T.V., Veremeev A.V., Kudryavtseva
  20. Yu.A., Zhuravleva I.Yu. Metabolicheskie i geneticheskie
  21. prediktory restenoza i tromboza arterial'nykh bioprotezov v
  22. bedrenno-podkolennoy pozitsii. Angiologiya i sosudistaya
  23. khirurgiya[Metabolic and genetic predictors of restenosis and
  24. thrombosis of arterial bioprostheses in the femoropopliteal
  25. position. Angiology and Vascular Surgery]. 2013; 3: 131-136.
  26. (in Russ.).
  28. Gavrilenko A.V., Egorov A.A., Mоlоkopoy S.N., Mamukhov
  29. A.S. Metody khirurgicheskogo lecheniya bol'nykh
  30. obliteriruyushchimi zabolevaniyami nizhnikh konechnostey
  31. s porazheniem distal'nogo rusla. Angiologiya i sosudistaya
  32. khirurgiya[Methods of treatment in patients with lower
  33. extremity arterial occlusive disease in presence of distal
  34. arterial lesion. Angiology and Vascular Surgery]. 2011; 3:
  35. -125. (in Russ.).
  37. Gusinsky A.V., Sedov V. N., Serebryansky Y.B. Rezul'taty
  38. ispol'zovaniya otechestvennykh sosudistykh protezov
  39. «Ekoflon». Vestnik khirurgii im I.I.Grekova[The results of
  40. using local vascular prostheses "ECOFLON"]. 2002; 1: 11-15
  41. (in Russ.).
  43. Kazakov Yu.I., Lukin I.B., Kazakov A.Yu., Efimov S.Yu.,
  44. Velikov P.G. Vybor metodov rekonstruktsii sosudov pri
  45. ishemii nizhnikh konechnostey. Angiologiya i sosudistaya
  46. khirurgiya[Choosing the method of reconstruction for lower-
  47. limb critical ischemia. Angiology and Vascular Surgery].
  48. ; 2: 152-158 (in Russ.).
  50. Matyushkin A.V., Lobachyov A.A., Korotkov I.M. Metody
  51. uluchsheniya otdalennykh rezul'tatov ispol'zovaniya
  52. sinteticheskogo proteza pri bedrenno-distal'no-podkolennom
  53. i bertsovom shuntirovanii. Vestnik eksperimental'noy i
  54. klinicheskoy khirurgii[Methods of improvement of the
  55. results of use of a synthetic prostetic limb at femoro-distal-
  56. popliteal and tibial bypass]. 2011: 3; 424-430 (in Russ.).
  58. Pokrovsky A. V. Klinicheskaya angiologiya v dvukh
  59. tomakh[Clinical angiology]. -Moscow: Medicine Publishers,
  60. ; 1: 808 (in Russ.).
  62. Pokrovsky A. V., Dan V. N., Zotikov A.E., Chupin A. V.,
  63. Shubin A. A.,
  64. Chikharev M. V. Otdalennye rezul'taty i
  65. pokazaniya k ispol'zovaniyu proteza «Gore-Tex» v bedrenno-
  66. podkolennoy pozitsii u bol'nykh s ateroskleroticheskim
  67. porazheniem arteriy nizhnikh konechnostey. Angiologiya
  68. i sosudistaya khirurgiya[The Long-Term results and
  69. indications for of GORE-TEX grafts in the femoropopliteal
  70. position in patients with atherosclerotic lesion of lower limb
  71. arteries. Angiology and Vascular Surgery]. 2004; 2: 91-98 (in
  72. Russ.).
  74. Safonov V. A., Ganichev A. F., Kim I. N., Khudashov
  75. V. G., Yakovlev D. O., Altarev A. S., Lukyanenko
  76. M. Yu. Opyt primeneniya sosudistykh bioprotezov
  77. «Kemangioprotez» v rekonstruktivnoy khirurgii
  78. magistral'nykh arteriy nizhnikh konechnostey. Angiologiya
  79. i sosudistaya khirurgiya[Experience with vascular biografts
  80. “Kemangioprotez” in reconstructive surgery of lower-limb
  81. major arteries. Angiology and Vascular Surgery]. 2009; 2:
  82. -106 (in Russ.).
  84. Bradbury A. W., Adam D. J., Bell J. Bypass versus
  85. Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial:
  86. Analysis of amputation free andoverall survival by treatment
  87. received. J. Vasc. Surg. 2010; 51 (Suppl. S.): 18-31.
  89. Conte M.S. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia
  90. of the Leg (BASIL) and the (hoped for) dawn of evidence-
  91. based treatment for advanced limb ischemia. J. Vasc. Surg.
  92. ; 51 (Suppl. S.): 69-76

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2015 ., ., .

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies