A randomized study comparing three groups of vein harvesting methods for coronary artery bypass grafting: endoscopic harvest versus standard bridging and open techniques

Bhuvaneswari Bibleraaj, William Critchley, Alex Glover, Janesh Nair, Mark Jones, Paul Waterworth, James Fildes, Nizar Yonan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES The use of an open vein harvesting (OVH) technique for saphenous vein harvesting (SVH) is associated with wound complications and delayed patient mobilization. This has led to the development of minimally invasive vein harvesting (MIVH) techniques, such as standard bridging and endoscopic SVH (EVH). This randomized trial was established to assess immediate clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in our centre. METHODS A total of 150 consecutive patients were prospectively randomized into three groups. Group 1 consisted of 50 patients who underwent OVH, Group 2 consisted of 50 patients who underwent a standard bridging technique (SBT) and Group 3 consisted of 50 patients who underwent EVH. Each group was assessed for the incidence of wound infection, postoperative pain and satisfaction and the number of vein repairs using previously validated scoring systems. RESULTS The MIVH techniques reduced the pain at hospital (P < 0.001) and at 6 weeks (P < 0.001), and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), compared with the OVH group. Patient satisfaction was greatest in the EVH group followed by the SBT and then the OVH group. The clinical markers of inflammation were reduced with an MIVHt. There were more vein repairs in the EVH compared with the OVH (P < 0.001) and the SBT (P = 0.04) groups. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that MIVH reduces wound morbidity. We believe that each technique has advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered during the selection of a harvesting procedure by both the patient and the surgeon.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)224-228
JournalInteractive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery
Volume15
Issue number2
Early online date18 May 2012
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 18 May 2012

Fingerprint

Coronary Artery Bypass
Veins
Saphenous Vein
Patient Satisfaction
Wounds and Injuries
Wound Infection
Postoperative Pain
Biomarkers
Inflammation
Morbidity
Pain
Incidence

Cite this

Bibleraaj, Bhuvaneswari ; Critchley, William ; Glover, Alex ; Nair, Janesh ; Jones, Mark ; Waterworth, Paul ; Fildes, James ; Yonan, Nizar. / A randomized study comparing three groups of vein harvesting methods for coronary artery bypass grafting: endoscopic harvest versus standard bridging and open techniques. In: Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2012 ; Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 224-228.
@article{b3f01442ce9b4c2587817f61d0df8b1d,
title = "A randomized study comparing three groups of vein harvesting methods for coronary artery bypass grafting: endoscopic harvest versus standard bridging and open techniques",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES The use of an open vein harvesting (OVH) technique for saphenous vein harvesting (SVH) is associated with wound complications and delayed patient mobilization. This has led to the development of minimally invasive vein harvesting (MIVH) techniques, such as standard bridging and endoscopic SVH (EVH). This randomized trial was established to assess immediate clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in our centre. METHODS A total of 150 consecutive patients were prospectively randomized into three groups. Group 1 consisted of 50 patients who underwent OVH, Group 2 consisted of 50 patients who underwent a standard bridging technique (SBT) and Group 3 consisted of 50 patients who underwent EVH. Each group was assessed for the incidence of wound infection, postoperative pain and satisfaction and the number of vein repairs using previously validated scoring systems. RESULTS The MIVH techniques reduced the pain at hospital (P < 0.001) and at 6 weeks (P < 0.001), and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), compared with the OVH group. Patient satisfaction was greatest in the EVH group followed by the SBT and then the OVH group. The clinical markers of inflammation were reduced with an MIVHt. There were more vein repairs in the EVH compared with the OVH (P < 0.001) and the SBT (P = 0.04) groups. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that MIVH reduces wound morbidity. We believe that each technique has advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered during the selection of a harvesting procedure by both the patient and the surgeon.",
author = "Bhuvaneswari Bibleraaj and William Critchley and Alex Glover and Janesh Nair and Mark Jones and Paul Waterworth and James Fildes and Nizar Yonan",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
day = "18",
doi = "10.1093/icvts/ivs164",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "224--228",
journal = "Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery",
issn = "1569-9293",
publisher = "Oxford",
number = "2",

}

A randomized study comparing three groups of vein harvesting methods for coronary artery bypass grafting: endoscopic harvest versus standard bridging and open techniques. / Bibleraaj, Bhuvaneswari; Critchley, William; Glover, Alex; Nair, Janesh; Jones, Mark; Waterworth, Paul; Fildes, James; Yonan, Nizar.

In: Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Vol. 15, No. 2, 18.05.2012, p. 224-228.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized study comparing three groups of vein harvesting methods for coronary artery bypass grafting: endoscopic harvest versus standard bridging and open techniques

AU - Bibleraaj, Bhuvaneswari

AU - Critchley, William

AU - Glover, Alex

AU - Nair, Janesh

AU - Jones, Mark

AU - Waterworth, Paul

AU - Fildes, James

AU - Yonan, Nizar

PY - 2012/5/18

Y1 - 2012/5/18

N2 - OBJECTIVES The use of an open vein harvesting (OVH) technique for saphenous vein harvesting (SVH) is associated with wound complications and delayed patient mobilization. This has led to the development of minimally invasive vein harvesting (MIVH) techniques, such as standard bridging and endoscopic SVH (EVH). This randomized trial was established to assess immediate clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in our centre. METHODS A total of 150 consecutive patients were prospectively randomized into three groups. Group 1 consisted of 50 patients who underwent OVH, Group 2 consisted of 50 patients who underwent a standard bridging technique (SBT) and Group 3 consisted of 50 patients who underwent EVH. Each group was assessed for the incidence of wound infection, postoperative pain and satisfaction and the number of vein repairs using previously validated scoring systems. RESULTS The MIVH techniques reduced the pain at hospital (P < 0.001) and at 6 weeks (P < 0.001), and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), compared with the OVH group. Patient satisfaction was greatest in the EVH group followed by the SBT and then the OVH group. The clinical markers of inflammation were reduced with an MIVHt. There were more vein repairs in the EVH compared with the OVH (P < 0.001) and the SBT (P = 0.04) groups. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that MIVH reduces wound morbidity. We believe that each technique has advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered during the selection of a harvesting procedure by both the patient and the surgeon.

AB - OBJECTIVES The use of an open vein harvesting (OVH) technique for saphenous vein harvesting (SVH) is associated with wound complications and delayed patient mobilization. This has led to the development of minimally invasive vein harvesting (MIVH) techniques, such as standard bridging and endoscopic SVH (EVH). This randomized trial was established to assess immediate clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in our centre. METHODS A total of 150 consecutive patients were prospectively randomized into three groups. Group 1 consisted of 50 patients who underwent OVH, Group 2 consisted of 50 patients who underwent a standard bridging technique (SBT) and Group 3 consisted of 50 patients who underwent EVH. Each group was assessed for the incidence of wound infection, postoperative pain and satisfaction and the number of vein repairs using previously validated scoring systems. RESULTS The MIVH techniques reduced the pain at hospital (P < 0.001) and at 6 weeks (P < 0.001), and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), compared with the OVH group. Patient satisfaction was greatest in the EVH group followed by the SBT and then the OVH group. The clinical markers of inflammation were reduced with an MIVHt. There were more vein repairs in the EVH compared with the OVH (P < 0.001) and the SBT (P = 0.04) groups. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that MIVH reduces wound morbidity. We believe that each technique has advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered during the selection of a harvesting procedure by both the patient and the surgeon.

U2 - 10.1093/icvts/ivs164

DO - 10.1093/icvts/ivs164

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 224

EP - 228

JO - Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery

JF - Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery

SN - 1569-9293

IS - 2

ER -