Literature DB >> 21172585

Long-term results of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest for lower extremity bypass.

Walker Julliard1, Jeremy Katzen, Michael Nabozny, Kate Young, Carolyn Glass, Michael J Singh, Karl A Illig.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic saphenous vein harvest (EVH) has been shown to lower wound infection rates and cost compared with conventional harvest, although long-term patency data are lacking. A small series of studies has recently suggested that patency is inferior to conventionally harvested vein technique, and we thus sought to explore this question by reviewing our cumulative experience with this technique.
METHODS: The short- and long-term outcomes of all lower extremity bypasses (LEBPs) using saphenous vein at one institution over a period of 8.5 years were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: A total of 363 patients averaging 67 ± 24 to 100 years of age had undergone LEBP and had charts available for review. Of these 363 patients, 170 underwent EVH (90% using a noninsufflation technique) and 193 conventional (by means of continuous or skip incisions); 48% of patients reported tissue loss and no differences in indication for surgery were noted between groups. Mean follow-up was 35.1 (range: <1-105) months. Primary patency rates were worse in the EVH group as compared with conventional at six (63.3% ± 4.0% vs. 77.3% ± 3.3%), 12 (50.4% ± 4.2% vs. 73.7% ± 3.6%), and 36 (42.2% ± 4.5% vs. 59.1% ± 4.9%) months (all p < 0.001), although these differences were largely limited to patients with limb-threat and diabetes. However, limb salvage and survival, were identical between groups. Contrary to previous experience, there were no differences in length of stay or wound complication rates.
CONCLUSIONS: The overall results of this study show an inferior long-term patency rate for endoscopically harvested saphenous vein after LEBP in our series as a whole, and do not confirm the short-term benefit previously shown in a selected cohort. These differences were, however, minimal or absent in patients with claudication or absence of diabetes, and EVH may continue to play a role in these cases.
Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21172585     DOI: 10.1016/j.avsg.2010.10.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0890-5096            Impact factor:   1.466


  3 in total

Review 1.  Bypass surgery for lower extremity limb salvage: vein bypass.

Authors:  Hosam F El-Sayed
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2012 Oct-Dec

2.  Endoscopic versus open saphenous vein graft harvest for lower extremity bypass in critical limb ischemia.

Authors:  Raymond E Eid; Li Wang; Michael Kuzman; Ghassan Abu-Hamad; Michael Singh; Luke K Marone; Steven A Leers; Rabih A Chaer
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.268

3.  The use of minimally invasive videoscopic technique in large vessel and cardiac surgery. Does the potentially increased difficulty bring benefits to the patient?

Authors:  Maciej Rachwalik; Tomasz Płonek; Wojciech Kustrzycki; Przemysław Szyber; Stanisław Pawłowski; Waldemar Goździk
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 1.195

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.