BACKGROUND: The saphenous vein is an established conduit for coronary revascularization. Disadvantages of traditional harvest technique are significant pain and morbidity. We compared the endoscopic harvest technique with the traditional method. METHOD:140 coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patients were randomized into 2 groups: endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH; n = 80) and traditional open vein harvesting (OVH; n = 60). Analysis included preoperative risk factors for wound complication, harvesting time, graft injury, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Patient follow-up lasted 3 months. RESULTS: The preoperative risk profiles of the groups were comparable. In the EVH group, 5 patients (7.1 %) had to be switched to the open technique. EVH time was 45 +/- 6.2 min vs. 31.1 +/- 6.5 min. Two patients (2.5 %) had to be revised because of bleeding complication vs. 6 (10 %) in the OVH group. No local infections or wound complications were observed in the EVH group vs. 11 (18 %) cases in the OVH group. Two OVH cases (3.6 %) were readmitted for wound debridement. All EVH patients reported less pain and were completely satisfied by the cosmetic results. CONCLUSION:EVH is a safe and efficient technique for CABG. Morbidity was significantly lower, with reduced pain and better cosmetic results. EVH time was significantly longer compared to the traditional harvesting technique.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The saphenous vein is an established conduit for coronary revascularization. Disadvantages of traditional harvest technique are significant pain and morbidity. We compared the endoscopic harvest technique with the traditional method. METHOD: 140 coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patients were randomized into 2 groups: endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH; n = 80) and traditional open vein harvesting (OVH; n = 60). Analysis included preoperative risk factors for wound complication, harvesting time, graft injury, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Patient follow-up lasted 3 months. RESULTS: The preoperative risk profiles of the groups were comparable. In the EVH group, 5 patients (7.1 %) had to be switched to the open technique. EVH time was 45 +/- 6.2 min vs. 31.1 +/- 6.5 min. Two patients (2.5 %) had to be revised because of bleeding complication vs. 6 (10 %) in the OVH group. No local infections or wound complications were observed in the EVH group vs. 11 (18 %) cases in the OVH group. Two OVH cases (3.6 %) were readmitted for wound debridement. All EVHpatients reported less pain and were completely satisfied by the cosmetic results. CONCLUSION:EVH is a safe and efficient technique for CABG. Morbidity was significantly lower, with reduced pain and better cosmetic results. EVH time was significantly longer compared to the traditional harvesting technique.
Authors: Sean van Diepen; J Matthew Brennan; Gail E Hafley; Eric M Reyes; Keith B Allen; T Bruce Ferguson; Eric D Peterson; Judson B Williams; C Michael Gibson; Michael J Mack; Nicholas T Kouchoukos; John H Alexander; Renato D Lopes Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Judson B Williams; Eric D Peterson; J Matthew Brennan; Art Sedrakyan; Dale Tavris; John H Alexander; Renato D Lopes; Rachel S Dokholyan; Yue Zhao; Sean M O'Brien; Robert E Michler; Vinod H Thourani; Fred H Edwards; Hesha Duggirala; Thomas Gross; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Peter K Smith Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 56.272