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 vs conventional vein harvesting: a prospective analysis.
    Author: Vaidyanathan KR, Sankar MN, Cherian KM.
    Journal: Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann; 2008 Apr; 16(2):134-8. PubMed ID: 18381872.
    Abstract:
    Minimally invasive vein harvesting is associated with better leg wound healing and a lower incidence of wound infections. We analyzed our experience in 2 prospectively enrolled groups of non-randomized patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting. Group 1 was 81 patients who had endoscopic vein harvesting; group 2 was 80 who had conventional open vein harvesting. The time taken for endoscopic harvest (skin incision to skin closure) was significantly less than that for open harvest (51.07 vs 75.94 min). The number of cases to reach a plateau on the learning curve for endoscopic vein harvest was 20 for 2 lengths of vein and 35 for 3 lengths of vein. Significantly more suture repairs per vein were required in group 1 (1.32) than group 2 (0.38). The incidence of wound infection was 1.2% in group 1 vs 8.8% in group 2. Endoscopic vein harvesting is not difficult to learn and it should be preferred over open vein harvest, given its benefits in wound healing.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]