UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting for CABG -- a randomized, prospective trial


Schurr, U P; Lachat, M L; Reuthebuch, O; Kadner, A; Mäder, M; Seifert, Burkhardt; Hoerstrup, S P; Zünd, G; Genoni, M; Turina, M I (2002). Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting for CABG -- a randomized, prospective trial. Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon, 50(3):160-163.

Abstract

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.

Abstract

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.

Citations

22 citations in Web of Science®
40 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:June 2002
Deposited On:12 Aug 2015 13:00
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 19:21
Publisher:Georg Thieme Verlag
ISSN:0171-6425
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-32412
PubMed ID:12077689

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations