OBJECTIVE This study was undertaken to examine the effectiveness and the possible advantages of infrainguinal arterial reconstruction with nonreversed greater saphenous vein (NRGSV) grafts. We reviewed the results achieved with 189 consecutive NRGSV bypass procedures from July 1, 1985, to August 31, 1995, and compared them with 568 consecutive in situ greater saphenous vein (INGSV) bypass procedures completed over the same interval. METHODS NRGSV bypass procedures were performed by selecting the optimum inflow and outflow vessels and then excising the best available appropriate-length segment of greater saphenous vein. The valves were lysed with a Mills valvulotome using gentle antegrade distention with an isotonic electrolyte solution containing heparin (1000 U/500 ml) and papaverine (60 mg/500 ml). The graft was then translocated to the inflow site, where the proximal and distal anastomoses were sequentially completed, followed by a completion arteriography. RESULTS Demographic and risk factor characteristics did not differ between patients who underwent NRGSV and those who underwent INGSV bypass. Compared with INGSV bypasses, NRGSV bypasses were more commonly secondary procedures (26% vs 8%; p < 0.001) and were more often performed for limb salvage indications (89% vs 68%; p < 0.001). NRGSV bypasses also had more distal inflow vessels (23% superficial femoral artery [SFA] and 28% popliteal artery [POP] vs 10% SFA and 1% POP; p < 0.001) and more distal outflow vessels (52% tibial and 22% pedal artery vs 47% tibial and 3% pedal artery; p < 0.001) than did INGSV bypasses. Despite the higher incidence of secondary bypass procedures and more distal outflow vessels in the NRGSV group, the overall results achieved at 5 years did not differ between the two groups. The 5-year primary patency rates were 65% +/- 5% for NRGSV and 72% +/- 3% for INGSV (p < 0.12), and the 5-year secondary patency rates were 74% +/- 5% and 82% +/- 2% (p < 0.08), respectively. Similarly, the 5-year limb salvage rate among bypass procedures performed for limb salvage indications did not differ for NRGSV (82% +/- 5%) and INGSV (90% +/- 2%; p < 0.06). CONCLUSIONS The application of the NRGSV bypass graft preserves the INGSV's main advantage of optimal size match between artery and vein at each anastomosis, but facilitaties the tailoring of the procedure to the patients anatomy and the completion of the bypass with the shortest, best-quality conduit available. Our application of the NRGSV in a more challenging series of bypass procedures produced equivalent results to those achieved in a concurrent series of INGSV bypass procedures.