These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Endoscopic versus conventional radial artery harvest--is smaller better?
    Author: Shapira OM, Eskenazi BR, Hunter CT, Anter E, Bao Y, Murphy R, Lazar HL, Shemin RJ.
    Journal: J Card Surg; 2006; 21(4):329-35. PubMed ID: 16846408.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: We sought to assess our initial experience with the recently introduced technique of endoscopic radial artery harvest (ERH) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on 108 consecutive patients undergoing isolated CABG with ERH, and compared to 120 patients having conventional harvest (CH). Follow-up was achieved in 227 patients (99%). At the time of follow-up the severity of motor and sensory symptoms, as well as cosmetic result in the harvest forearm, were subjectively graded using a 5-point scale. Grade 1-- high intensity deficits, poor cosmetic result. Grade 5 -- no deficits, excellent cosmetic result. RESULTS: Hospital mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke rates were similar between the groups. Follow-up mortality, reintervention rate, and average angina class were also similar. Harvest time was longer in the ERH group (61 +/- 24 min vs. 45 +/- 11 min, p < 0.001). Three patients in the ERH group were converted to CH and one radial artery was discarded. There were no vascular complications of the hand in either group. Average score of motor (ERH 4.4 +/- 0.9, CH 4.2 +/- 1.0) or sensory symptoms (ERH 3.7 +/- 1.1, CH 3.8 +/- 1.2) were similar. In the CH group sensory deficits were observed in the distribution of both the lateral antebrachial cutaneous and the superficial radial nerves (SRN). In contrast, sensory deficits in the ERH group were limited to the distribution of the SRN. Cosmetic result score was higher in the ERH group (ERH 4.2 +/- 1.0, CH 3.1 +/- 1.4, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ERH is safe. It is technically demanding with a significant learning curve. Motor and sensory symptoms are not completely eliminated by using a smaller incision, but cosmetic results are clearly superior.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]