Home > Journals > Italian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery > Past Issues > Italian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2019 September;26(3) > Italian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2019 September;26(3):109-14

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Italian Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2019 September;26(3):109-14

DOI: 10.23736/S1824-4777.19.01407-4

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Comparative study between brachiobasilic and radiobasilic vascular access for dialysis in chronic renal failure patients

Walid M. GAMAL 1 , Mahmoud A. MAHMOUD 2, Wael M. WAGDY 3, Abdelrahman G. MONOFY 1

1 Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Qena University Hospitals, Qena, Egypt; 2 Department of General Surgery, Qena University Hospitals, Qena, Egypt; 3 Department of Radiology, Qena University Hospitals, Qena, Egypt



BACKGROUND: Management options for subjects suffering end-stage renal failure could be classified into three options either hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis and finally kidney transplantation. We aim in our work to compare primary patency between brachiobasilic arteriovenous fistula (BBAVF) and radiobasilic arteriovenous fistula (RBAVF) as a hemodialysis vascular access in chronic renal failure (CRF) patients.
METHODS: A prospective comparative study was performed in the Department of Vascular Surgery, Qena University Hospital, from March 2018 to March 2019. Eighty patients with CRF were recruited. Patients were classified into 2 groups (A and B), group A consists of 50 patients in whom BBAVF fistulas were performed while group B consists of 30 subjects in whom RBAVF fistulas were created.
RESULTS: Our primary patency rate of the BBAVFs and RBAVFs is 64% and 73% respectively while one year assisted patency rate is 76% and 76.7% respectively with no statistical significant difference as P>0.05.The incidence of complications in the BBAVFs was higher than in RBAVFs group with significant difference as P<0.05.
CONCLUSIONS: RBAVFs are as effective as BBAVFs as a vascular access for dialysis in CRF patients that should be considered.


KEY WORDS: Arteriovenous fistula; Renal dialysis; Vascular access devices

top of page