Leg wound infections following greater saphenous vein harvesting: minimally invasive vein harvesting versus conventional vein harvesting.

Wound complications associated with long incisions used to harvest the greater saphenous vein are common and well documented. We compared leg wound infection rates, wound healing disturbances (WHDs), length of vein harvested, vein harvest time, and total surgical time between minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting (MIVH) and conventional vein harvesting (CVH) techniques. This meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in wound infections in favor of the MIVH group (odds ratio = 0.19; 95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.25) and a significant reduction in WHDs in favor of the MIVH group (odds ratio = 0.26; 95% confidence interval = 0.20-0.34). The MIVH and CVH techniques are equivalent with respect to saphenous vein harvest time, saphenous vein harvest length, and total surgical time. A visual inspection of "funnel" plots suggests a mild to moderate publication bias. This meta-analysis suggests that leg wound infections and wound healing disturbances are reduced using MIVH techniques.