4.2 Article

Popliteal entrapment syndrome-The case for a new classification

Journal

VASCULAR
Volume 30, Issue 2, Pages 285-291

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/17085381211007612

Keywords

Entrapment syndrome; popliteal artery entrapment; popliteal compression; popliteal entrapment syndrome; popliteal vein entrapment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated the current classification system for popliteal entrapment syndrome and found that it only accurately captured 64% of cases. A new classification system was developed that captured 100% of cases, indicating the need for a more inclusive classification system.
Objectives To assess the ability of the current classification system for popliteal entrapment syndrome to accurately capture all patients, and if not, to design an all-inclusive new classification. Methods Retrospective review of all interventions performed for popliteal entrapment syndrome between 1994 and 2013 at our institution was performed. Preoperative imaging and intraoperative findings were used to establish the compressive morphology of popliteal entrapment syndrome. Patients were categorized, when possible, into six types of the current classification system (Rich classification, modified by Levien) and into seven types of a new classification. Results Sixty-seven limbs of 49 patients were operated on for unilateral (31) or bilateral (18) popliteal entrapment syndrome. The current classification system captured the anatomy of only 43 (64%) of 67 limbs with popliteal entrapment syndrome. Compressive morphologies without a defined class included aberrant insertion of the lateral head of gastrocnemius muscle, muscle slip originating from the lateral head of gastrocnemius or hamstrings, hypertrophied hamstring muscle, abnormal fibrous bands, perivascular connective tissue, and prominent lateral femoral condyle. The new classification captured 100% of the limbs with popliteal entrapment syndrome. Conclusions Current classification of popliteal entrapment syndrome is inadequate as more than one-third of the cases reviewed fell outside of the standard classification system. Consideration of a more inclusive new anatomic classification system is warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available