BACKGROUND:Conventional saphenous vein harvest is associated with numerous complications, which may be reduced by minimally invasive vein-harvesting techniques. The integrity of the venous endothelium must be guaranteed before using new saphenous vein harvesting techniques. This short-term study compared the clinical outcome of two minimally invasive techniques with the conventional technique, and compared morphology as documented by light and electron microscopy. METHODS:Ninety-two patients were prospectively randomized into three groups. Two different minimally invasive techniques of greater saphenous vein harvesting were used in sixty-two patients. One used a video-assisted dissector (group A, n = 31), and one used a light-coupled retractor (group B, n = 31). Thirty patients were treated by the conventional technique (group C). RESULTS:Incision lengths were 7.6+/-2.1 cm in group A and 9.3+/-3.2 cm in group B, as compared with 38.9+/-8.7 cm in the conventional group. Harvesting time was prolonged by a mean of 26% when using a minimally invasive technique. Conversion rate to the open technique was 3 of 31 (9.3%) in group A and 2 of 31 (6.2%) in group B. No wound complications were noted in group A, but one wound inflammation was seen in group B; only a mild hematoma was seen in both groups. Edge necrosis, wound separation and inflammation were noted in the conventional group. Light and electron microscopy revealed no significant denudation of the endothelial layer in groups A and B as compared with group C. CONCLUSIONS: These data show an excellent postoperative result when using the minimally invasive technique as compared with the conventional group. The safety of the technique is demonstrated by the preservation of endothelial integrity.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Conventional saphenous vein harvest is associated with numerous complications, which may be reduced by minimally invasive vein-harvesting techniques. The integrity of the venous endothelium must be guaranteed before using new saphenous vein harvesting techniques. This short-term study compared the clinical outcome of two minimally invasive techniques with the conventional technique, and compared morphology as documented by light and electron microscopy. METHODS: Ninety-two patients were prospectively randomized into three groups. Two different minimally invasive techniques of greater saphenous vein harvesting were used in sixty-two patients. One used a video-assisted dissector (group A, n = 31), and one used a light-coupled retractor (group B, n = 31). Thirty patients were treated by the conventional technique (group C). RESULTS: Incision lengths were 7.6+/-2.1 cm in group A and 9.3+/-3.2 cm in group B, as compared with 38.9+/-8.7 cm in the conventional group. Harvesting time was prolonged by a mean of 26% when using a minimally invasive technique. Conversion rate to the open technique was 3 of 31 (9.3%) in group A and 2 of 31 (6.2%) in group B. No wound complications were noted in group A, but one wound inflammation was seen in group B; only a mild hematoma was seen in both groups. Edge necrosis, wound separation and inflammation were noted in the conventional group. Light and electron microscopy revealed no significant denudation of the endothelial layer in groups A and B as compared with group C. CONCLUSIONS: These data show an excellent postoperative result when using the minimally invasive technique as compared with the conventional group. The safety of the technique is demonstrated by the preservation of endothelial integrity.