Abstract
Background: We sought to determine whether the postoperative and midterm outcomes of minimally invasive and endoscopic great saphenous vein harvesting are comparable. Methods: From February 2004 to September 2006, 120 patients underwent minimally invasive vein harvesting, and subsequently 150 patients had endoscopic vein harvesting for CABG. Patients were evaluated prospectively for wound-healing disturbances, residual leg oedema, pain intensity and saphenous neuropathy on the 7th postoperative day and after 3 months. Results: Both harvesting techniques were associated with a low incidence of wound-healing disturbances; nevertheless, minimally invasive vein harvesting was associated with a significantly higher incidence of residual oedema (28 % vs. 13 %; p < 0.05), (19 % vs. 6 %; p < 0.001), pain (20 % vs. 9 %; p < 0.05), (10 % vs. 6 %; p < 0.05), and saphenous neuropathy (23 % vs. 7 %; p < 0.001) (14 % vs. 3 %; p < 0.001) during follow-up on the 7th postoperative day as well as 3 months after surgery, respectively. Mean harvesting time (40.6 ± 15.5 vs. 43.9 ± 10.2 min; p = 0.09), conversion rate (3 % vs. 2 %; p = 0.71), and injury per conduit (0.3 ± 0.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.1; p = 0.91) were comparable for both groups. Conclusions: Endoscopic vein harvesting seems to be superior to minimally invasive vein harvesting in terms of a significant reduction of residual leg oedema, pain intensity and particularly saphenous neuropathy in the postoperative and midterm follow-up.
Key words
vein harvesting - coronary bypass surgery - minimally invasive - endoscopic - leg‐wound complications
References
martin.simek@c-mail.cz
