1. Kunlin J: Le traitement de l'arterite obliterante par la greffe veineuse. Arch Mal Coeur42:371-373, 1949.
2.
2. Hall KV: Great saphenous vein used in situ as an arterial shunt after valve extirpation: The method and immediate result. Acta Chir Scand128:365-386, 1964.
3.
3. May AG, DeWeese JA, Rob CG: Arterialized in situ saphenous vein. Arch Surg91:743-750, 1965.
4.
4. Leather RP, Powers SR, Karmody AM: A reappraisal of the in situ saphenous vein arterial bypass: Its use in limb salvage. Surgery86:453-461, 1979.
5.
5. Gruss JD, Bartels D, Vargas H, et al: Arterial reconstruction for distal disease of the lower extremities by the in situ vein graft technique. J Cardiovasc Surg23:231-234, 1982.
6.
6. Bush HL, Nabseth DC, Curl GR, et al: In situ saphenous vein bypass grafts for limb salvage: A current fad or a viable alternative to reversed vein bypass grafts?Am J Surg149:477-480, 1985.
7.
7. Fogle MA, Whittemore AD, Couch NP, et al: A comparison of in situ and reversed saphenous vein grafts for infrainguinal reconstruction. J Vasc Surg5:46-52, 1987.
8.
8. Hurley JJ, Auer Al, Binnington HB, et al: Comparison of initial salvage in 98 consecutive patients with either reversed autogenous or in situ vein bypass graft procedures. Am J Surg150:777-780, 1985.
9.
9. Taylor LM, Phinney ES, Porter JM: Present status of reversed vein bypass for lower extremity revascularization. J Vasc Surg3:288-297, 1986.
10.
10. Taylor LM, Edwards JM, Phinney ES, et al: Reversed vein bypass to infrapopliteal arteries. Ann Surg205:90-97, 1987.
11.
11. Leather RP, Shah DM, Chang BB, et al: Resurrection of the in situ saphenous vein bypass: 1000 cases later. Ann Surg208:435-442, 1988.
12.
12. Calligaro KD, Friedell ML, Rollins DL, et al: A comparative review of in situ versus reversed vein grafts in the 1980s. Surg Gynecol Obstet172:247-252, 1991.
13.
13. Geisel Theodore S. (Dr. Seuss): The Butter Battle Book. New York: Random House, Inc, 1964.
14.
14. Denton MJ, Hill D, Fairgrieve J: In situ femoropopliteal and distal vein bypass for limb salvage—experience of 50 cases. Br J Surg70:358-361, 1983.
15.
15. Leather RP, Shah DM, Buchbinder D: Further experience with the saphenous vein used in situ for arterial bypass. Am J Surg142:506-510, 1981.
16.
16. Bush HL Jr, Hong SI, Deykin D, et al: The effect of surgical trauma on prostacyclin production by vein grafts. Surg Forum33:463-465, 1982.
17.
17. Bush HL Jr, Corey CA, Nabseth DC: Distal in situ saphenous vein grafts: Increased operative blood flow and postoperative patency. Am J Surg145:542-548, 1983.
18.
18. Ku DN, Klafta JM, Gewertz BL, et al: The contribution of valves to saphenous vein graft resistance. J Vasc Surg6:274-279, 1987.
19.
19. Bandyk DF, Johnson BL, Gupta AK, et al: Nature and management of duplex abnormalities encountered during infrainguinal vein bypass grafting. J Vasc Surg24:430-438, 1996.
20.
20. Cambria RP, Megerman J, Abbott WM: Endothelial preservation in reversed and in situ autogenous vein grafts: A quantitative experimental study. Ann Surg202:50-55, 1985.
21.
21. Sayers RD, Watt PAC, Muller S, et al: Endothelial cell injury secondary to surgical preparation of reversed and in situ saphenous vein bypass grafts. Eur J Vasc Surg6:354-361, 1991.
22.
22. Cambria RP, Megerman J, Brewster DC, et al: The evolution of morphologic and biomechanical changes in reversed and in-situ vein grafts. Ann Surg205:167-174, 1987.
23.
23. Gupta AK, Bandyk DF, Cheanvechai D, et al: Natural history of infrainguinal vein graft stenosis relative to bypass grafting technique. J Vasc Surg25:211-225, 1997.
24.
24. Tullis MJ, Primozich J, Strandness DE Jr: Detection of “functional” valves in reversed saphenous vein by pass grafts: Identification with duplex ultrasonography. J Vasc Surg25:522-527, 1997.
25.
25. Giannoukas AD, Androulakis AE, Labropoulos N, et al: The role of surveillance after infrainguinal bypass grafting. Eur J Vasc Surg11:279-289, 1996.
26.
26. Mills JL: Mechanisms of vein graft failure: The location, distribution, and characteristics of lesions that predispose to graft failure. Sem Vasc Surg6:78-91, 1993.
27.
27. Gentile AT, Lee RW, Moneta GL, et al: Results of by-pass to the popliteal and tibial arteries with alternative sources of autogenous vein. J Vasc Surg23:272-280, 1996.
28.
28. Shah DM, Darling RC, Chang BB, et al: Long-term results of in situ saphenous vein bypass: Analysis of 2058 cases. Ann Surg222:438-448, 1995.
29.
29. Watelet J, Cheysson E, Poels D, et al: In situ versus reversed saphenous vein for femoropopliteal bypass: A prospective randomized study of 100 cases. Ann Vasc Surg1:441-452, 1986.
30.
30. Veterans Administration Study Group 141: Comparative evaluation of prosthetic, reversed, and in situ vein bypass grafts in distal popliteal and tibial-peroneal revascularization. Arch Surg123:434-438, 1988.
31.
31. Wengerter KR, Veith FJ, Gupta SK, et al: Prospective randomized multicenter comparison of in situ and reversed vein infrapopliteal bypasses. J Vasc Surg13:189-199, 1991.
32.
32. Moody AP, Edwards PR, Harris PL: In situ versus reversed femoropopliteal vein grafts: Long term followup of a prospective, randomized trial. Br J Surg79:750-752, 1992.
33.
33. Pomposelli FB Jr, Marcaccio EJ, Gibbons GW, et al: Dorsalis pedis arterial bypass: Durable limb salvage for foot ischemia in patients with diabetes mellitus. J Vasc Surg21:375-384, 1995.
34.
34. Neale ML, Graham JC, Lane RJ, et al: The influence of graft type on patency of infrainguinal arterial by-pass grafts. J Am Coll Surg178:155-163, 1994.
35.
35. Schneider JR, Walsh DM, McDaniel MD, et al: Pedal bypass versus tibial bypass with autogenous vein: A comparison of outcome and hemodynamic results. J Vasc Surg17:1029-1040, 1993.
36.
36. Lundell A, Lindblad B, Bergquist D, et al: Femoropopliteal-crural graft patency is improved by an intensive surveillance program: A prospective randomized study. J Vasc Surg21:26-34, 1995.
37.
37. Bandyk DF, Kaebnick HW, Stewart GW, et al: Durability of the in situ saphenous vein arterial bypass: A comparison of primary and secondary patency. J Vasc Surg5:256-268, 1987.
