XXXX complicated or not by @entity292 : comparison of treatment with and without cryopreserved allograft (homograft).

@entity1 @entity455 @entity292 @entity204
OBJECTIVES: in @entity1 with @entity455 , to compare surgical outcome and long-term results of cryopreserved allograft implantations to conventional surgery. DESIGN: retrospective study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: two asynchronous series of 44 [series I: 1980-1994; 8 @entity1 with @entity292 ( @entity292 )] and 22 (series II: 1994-1997; 4 @entity1 with @entity292 ) @entity1 were treated for prosthesis infection. All @entity1 had prosthesis excision. In series I, there were 4 in situ reparations, 26 extra-anatomic bypass, 13 excision only, and one @entity204 at laparotomy. In series II, in situ cryopreserved allografts were implanted in all @entity1 . RESULTS: operative mortality was 16% in series I and 13.6% in series II. For @entity292 @entity1 , mortality was 37% in series I and 50% in series II. Among hospital survivors, infection-related late mortality was 13.5% in series I and 5% in series II. For @entity292 @entity1 , late mortality was 20% in series I and 50% in series II. Incidence of reoperations was 54% in series I and 10.5% in series II (p<0.01). Hospital stay was 47.2+/-26.4 days in series I and 16.6+/-11.5 days in series II (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: compared to conventional treatment, incidence of reoperations and length of hospital stay are significantly decreased after cryopreserved allograft implantation. However, closure of aortic stump and extra-anatomic bypass gives better results for @entity1 with @entity292 .
