A randomized study comparing three groups of vein harvesting methods for coronary artery bypass grafting: endoscopic harvest versus standard bridging and open techniques
Open Access
- 18 May 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery
- Vol. 15 (2), 224-228
- https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivs164
Abstract
The use of an open vein harvesting (OVH) technique for saphenous vein harvesting (SVH) is associated with wound complications and delayed patient mobilization. This has led to the development of minimally invasive vein harvesting (MIVH) techniques, such as standard bridging and endoscopic SVH (EVH). This randomized trial was established to assess immediate clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in our centre. A total of 150 consecutive patients were prospectively randomized into three groups. Group 1 consisted of 50 patients who underwent OVH, Group 2 consisted of 50 patients who underwent a standard bridging technique (SBT) and Group 3 consisted of 50 patients who underwent EVH. Each group was assessed for the incidence of wound infection, postoperative pain and satisfaction and the number of vein repairs using previously validated scoring systems. The MIVH techniques reduced the pain at hospital (P < 0.001) and at 6 weeks (P < 0.001), and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), compared with the OVH group. Patient satisfaction was greatest in the EVH group followed by the SBT and then the OVH group. The clinical markers of inflammation were reduced with an MIVHt. There were more vein repairs in the EVH compared with the OVH (P < 0.001) and the SBT (P = 0.04) groups. This study demonstrates that MIVH reduces wound morbidity. We believe that each technique has advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered during the selection of a harvesting procedure by both the patient and the surgeon.Keywords
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- Is it safe to perform endoscopic vein harvest?Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, 2010
- A comparative analysis of saphenous vein conduit harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass grafting – standard bridging versus the open techniqueInteractive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, 2010
- Should we mobilise critically ill patients? A reviewCritical Care and Resuscitation, 2009
- Strategies to reduce intraluminal clot formation in endoscopically harvested saphenous veinsThe Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2007
- Does Minimally Invasive Vein Harvesting Technique Affect the Quality of the Conduit for Coronary Revascularization?The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2005
- Saphenous Vein Grafts: To Use or Not to Use?Heart, Lung and Circulation, 2004
- Leg wound infection after coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus conventional vein harvestingThe Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2003
- Assessment of Postoperative Pain Management: Patient Satisfaction and Perceived HelpfulnessThe Clinical Journal of Pain, 1997
- The use of the wound scoring method ‘ASEPSIS’ in postoperative wound surveillanceJournal of Hospital Infection, 1990
- Studies with pain rating scales.Annals Of The Rheumatic Diseases, 1978