OBJECTIVE: Minimal invasive endoscopic vein harvesting has not gained widespread acceptance although potential improvements in wound healing and patient comfort are undebatable. The main objections to routine application have been impaired graft quality and prolonged operation time. The feasibility of introducing the minimal invasive approach to vein harvesting into a high volume cardiac bypass surgery program was to be investigated in 1400 patients. METHODS: Our preferred technique is based on standard videoscopic equipment for endoscopic surgery. No disposables are used. The subcutaneous tissue above the saphenous vein is tunnelled by exclusively sharp dissection. No shear stresses are applied to the vein graft or its side branches. Side branches are closed by clips or bipolar coagulation. The differences between endoscopic and conventional surgical vein harvesting with regard to operation time, graft quality, wound healing disturbances and postoperative pain were compared in two groups of 300 concurrently operated patients. Subsequently, a further 1100 patients underwent endoscopic vein harvesting, giving a total experience of 1400 endoscopic procedures. RESULTS: After a learning curve of approximately 100 procedures for an experienced surgeon, harvesting time using minimal invasive techniques was 16 +/- 4 min/graft vs. 10 +/- 2 min for the conventional technique (P < 0.01). Severe wound healing disturbances requiring re-intervention were observed in 0.1% following endoscopic harvesting, moderate wound healing disturbances were observed in 1.7% of patients. By comparison, conventional harvesting led to severe wound healing disturbances in 5% and to moderate disturbances in 8% (P < 0.05). Incidence of peri-operative myocardial infarction as an indirect measure of graft quality was 1.7% with endoscopic vs. 2.3% (n.s.) with conventional technique. Early postoperative mobilisation was faster, pain and need of analgesics were distinctly reduced in patients with endoscopic harvesting. Overall operation time was not significantly prolonged by the described technique. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal invasive endoscopic vein harvesting can be developed into a routine procedure resulting in a lower incidence of wound complications, less postoperative pain and much superior cosmetic results. Graft quality appears to be comparable to standard saphenectomy. There is, however, a higher demand of surgical training and expertise.
OBJECTIVE: Minimal invasive endoscopic vein harvesting has not gained widespread acceptance although potential improvements in wound healing and patient comfort are undebatable. The main objections to routine application have been impaired graft quality and prolonged operation time. The feasibility of introducing the minimal invasive approach to vein harvesting into a high volume cardiac bypass surgery program was to be investigated in 1400 patients. METHODS: Our preferred technique is based on standard videoscopic equipment for endoscopic surgery. No disposables are used. The subcutaneous tissue above the saphenous vein is tunnelled by exclusively sharp dissection. No shear stresses are applied to the vein graft or its side branches. Side branches are closed by clips or bipolar coagulation. The differences between endoscopic and conventional surgical vein harvesting with regard to operation time, graft quality, wound healing disturbances and postoperative pain were compared in two groups of 300 concurrently operated patients. Subsequently, a further 1100 patients underwent endoscopic vein harvesting, giving a total experience of 1400 endoscopic procedures. RESULTS: After a learning curve of approximately 100 procedures for an experienced surgeon, harvesting time using minimal invasive techniques was 16 +/- 4 min/graft vs. 10 +/- 2 min for the conventional technique (P < 0.01). Severe wound healing disturbances requiring re-intervention were observed in 0.1% following endoscopic harvesting, moderate wound healing disturbances were observed in 1.7% of patients. By comparison, conventional harvesting led to severe wound healing disturbances in 5% and to moderate disturbances in 8% (P < 0.05). Incidence of peri-operative myocardial infarction as an indirect measure of graft quality was 1.7% with endoscopic vs. 2.3% (n.s.) with conventional technique. Early postoperative mobilisation was faster, pain and need of analgesics were distinctly reduced in patients with endoscopic harvesting. Overall operation time was not significantly prolonged by the described technique. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal invasive endoscopic vein harvesting can be developed into a routine procedure resulting in a lower incidence of wound complications, less postoperative pain and much superior cosmetic results. Graft quality appears to be comparable to standard saphenectomy. There is, however, a higher demand of surgical training and expertise.
Authors: Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy; William R Critchley; Rajamiyer V Venkateswaran; James Barnard; Ann Caress; James E Fildes; Nizar Yonan Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 1.637