Wound-healing disturbances after vein harvesting for CABG: a randomized trial to compare the minimally invasive direct vision and traditional approaches

Saphenous vein harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The great saphenous vein (GSV) graft remains a frequently used conduit for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The optimal technique for GSV harvesting has been the subject of on-going controversy. We therefore sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available GSV harvesting techniques in CABG. A systematic search of 12 electronic databases was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any GSV harvesting technique, including conventional vein harvesting (CVH), no-touch, standard bridging technique (SBT) and endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) techniques. We investigated safety and long-term efficacy outcomes. All outcomes were analyzed using the frequentist network meta-analysis. A total of 6480 patients from 34 RCTs were included. For safety outcomes, EVH reduced 91% and 77% risk of wound infection compared to no-touch and CVH, respectively. EVH and SBT also significantly reduced the risk of sensibility disorder and postoperative pain. The techniques were not significantly different regarding long-term efficacy outcomes, including mortality, myocardial infarction and graft patency. For GSV harvesting for CABG, EVH techniques are the most favorable, but in case of using an open technique, no-touch is more recommended than CVH. More effective and safer procedures should be investigated for GSV harvesting in CABG.

Immunohistochemistry comparing endoscopic vein harvesting vs. open vein harvesting on saphenous vein endothelium

Objective

The present study attempts to compare the immunohistochemistry (IHC) of von Willebrand factor (vWf) , endothelial cadherin, Caveolin and endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) in VasoView Endoscopic Vein Harvesting (EVH) versus traditional Open Vein Harvesting (OVH) techniques for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Surgery performed in Javad al Aemeh Hospital of Mashhad, Iran in 2013,.

Methods and materials

Forty-seven patients were scheduled for CABG (30 EVH and 17 OVH) among whom patients with relatively same gender and similar age were selected. Three separate two cm vein samples were harvested from each patient’s saphenous vein. Each portion was collected from distal, middle and proximal zones of the saphenous vein. The tissues were deparaffinized, and antigen retrieval was done using EZ-retriever followed by an immunohistochemistry evaluation with vWf, e-cadherin, Caveolin and eNOS. In addition, demographic questioner as of Lipid profile, FBS, BMI, and cardiovascular risk factors were collected. Data analyses, including parametric and nonparametric tests were undertaken using the SPSS 16 software. A P value < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

The mean age of the EVH and OVH groups were 63.76 ± 9.51 and 63.63 ± 8.31 years respectively with no significant difference between them (p = 0.989). In addition, there was no great difference between the EVH and OVH groups in lipid profile, DM, HTN, smoking history, CVA, and valvular dysfunction (P > 0.05). Qualitative report of vWf, e-cadherin, Caveolin and eNOS reveals no significant difference between the EVH and OVH (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

This study indicates that VasoView EVH technique causes no endothelial damage in comparison with OVH. This study could be a molecular confirmation for the innocuous of EVH technique.

Necrotizing fasciitis following endoscopic harvesting of the greater saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass graft

Clinicians should be aware of this rare, potentially lethal infection following minimally invasive vein harvesting techniques.

The greater saphenous vein (GSV) remains the most commonly harvested conduit for revascularization in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Published literature shows that minimally invasive vein harvesting techniques have a significantly lower incidence of wound infection rates than conventional open vein harvesting techniques have. We report a case of necrotizing fasciitis, an infection with a mortality rate of 30% to 50%, after endoscopic harvesting of the greater saphenous vein to be used as a conduit in a CABG procedure. Though minimally invasive vein harvesting techniques have advantages of smaller incisions and a decreased overall rate of wound infection, clinicians should be aware of this potentially lethal infection that may occur.

[Postoperative wound healing disorders]

AIM

Investigation of the incidence of wound healing disorders in operative material and that of possible commonality with the nosocomial categories of operations and with the surgical site infections registered by the authors, respectively. OPERATIVE MATERIAL AND METHOD: The data of 33,336 operations, made in their ward, are analysed by the authors. By way of introduction the question of nomenclature is discussed which is not uniform in the literature. Referring to the most accepted infection surveillance systems they state that wound healing disorders represent a different idea than surgical site infections. The method of their prospective investigation is described as follows: at the time of the emission of the patient every wound healing disorder is registered in a collective protocol and in a short case history. Then they are monthly summarised. The data were elaborated in one year, in 5 years, in 10 years and in 20 years grouping interconnected with the nosocomial categories of the operations, and with the surgical site infections observed in the same period of time.

RESULTS

The numerical results are debated in detail. These show that the 20-year summarised rate of wound healing disorders amounts to 2.2% and that of surgical site infections to 2.7%. They point out that the rates of both wound healing disorders and surgical site infections are diminishing during the second half of observation. The former is related to the improved surgical technique and to the better operative circumstances introduced during the observed two decades. The latter can be a consequence of their prospective infection register based on the CDC ad HELICS systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Up till now no information could be found by them in the literature concerning the interaction of wound healing disorders with the nosocomial categories of the performed operations. The author's new establishment: as proceeding from category "A" towards category "D", not only the rates of surgical site infections became greater and greater, but those of wound healing disorders, too. But there is an important difference: the increase of the rates of wound healing disorders is in general meaningfully less than that of surgical site infections. Concerning the interaction of wound healing disorders with surgical site infections also another original observation was made by them: if the rate of surgical site infections is less than 2%, the identical rate of wound healing disorders is greater than the rate of surgical site infections and vice versa. If the rate of surgical site infections is greater than 2%, the rate of wound healing disorders becomes less than the rate of site infections. In conclusion the authors think that this relationship between the two sorts of rates - which can be seen in the majority (82.5%) of the rates of wound healing disorders and identical surgical site infections - seems to be fundamental. The interpretation of this observation can be done as follows: all wound healing disorders represent "loci minoris resistentiae" concerning the infection. They don't suppurate, or they scarcely suppurate in the aseptic category "A" and in the facultative septic category "B". On the other hand, more and more of their proportion becomes suppurated in the septic category "C", and even more in the seriously septic category "D". Finally they refer to their guessing, whereby, in an adequate context, the rates of wound healing disorders could be perhaps new indicators in surgical quality assurance.

Leg Wound Infections Following Greater Saphenous Vein Harvesting: Minimally Invasive Vein Harvesting Versus Conventional Vein Harvesting

Wound complications associated with long incisions used to harvest the greater saphenous vein are common and well documented. We compared leg wound infection rates, wound healing disturbances (WHDs), length of vein harvested, vein harvest time, and total surgical time between minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting (MIVH) and conventional vein harvesting (CVH) techniques. This meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in wound infections in favor of the MIVH group (odds ratio = 0.19; 95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.25) and a significant reduction in WHDs in favor of the MIVH group (odds ratio = 0.26; 95% confidence interval = 0.20-0.34). The MIVH and CVH techniques are equivalent with respect to saphenous vein harvest time, saphenous vein harvest length, and total surgical time. A visual inspection of “funnel” plots suggests a mild to moderate publication bias. This meta-analysis suggests that leg wound infections and wound healing disturbances are reduced using MIVH techniques.

Public Health Reporting: The United States Perspective

The release of 2 landmark reports by the Institute of Medicine titled, “To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System” and “Crossing the Quality Chasm” were instrumental in the identification of safety and quality issues. Since their release, federal and state programs of public reporting of performance measures have attempted to close the quality gap of care that is inappropriate, not timely, or lacking an evidence base. Cardiac surgery has long been the focus of public scrutiny, and now, as we move from an era of managed care to public reporting, reimbursement for cardiac surgery procedures will be tied to performance. However, the question is whether public reporting and pay for performance will ultimately improve the quality of patient care, safety, and provide the consumer with enough information to make surgeon and institutional choices. Will the cost and focus of achieving perfection with performance standards overshadow any real improvement in clinical outcomes?

A new and safe device for minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting: results after 100 cases

PURPOSE

: The saphenous vein is the most commonly used bypass conduit for coronary surgery. Endoscopic harvesting techniques are associated with significant reduction of wound complications but are time-consuming and expensive. The authors developed a device to perform minimally invasive harvesting of the saphenous vein-rapidly, inexpensively, and safely.

DESCRIPTION

: Patients hospitalized for isolated CABG (n = 134) participated in the study. Each vein had been harvested through the use of our minimally invasive system.

EVALUATION

: The veins were harvested in 130 cases; 378 vein samples were collected for pathology study, with complete integrity of the vein as the result of the "no touch" technique with the device. This integrity could be very important for the long-term patency of the vein graft. After surgery, there were no wound dehiscences, infections, or major hematomas. There was 1 case (0.76%) of superficial hematoma and 3 cases (2.30%) of lymphoceles.

CONCLUSIONS

: Although commercial disposable systems are now available to allow minimally invasive harvesting of the saphenous vein, the authors think that harvesting the greater saphenous vein with the cylinder steel device is easy to learn can be used safely and at much-reduced costs.

Postoperative and mid-term wound disturbance outcomes of minimally invasive saphenous vein harvest using the VEGA system

Great saphenous vein harvest is associated with a significant risk of impaired wound healing. The purpose of this study was to determine efficacy of one system designed for minimally invasive vein harvest (MIVH) and to assess postoperative and mid-term wound-healing disturbances. From February 2004 to June 2005, great saphenous harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was performed in a group of 120 consecutive patients employing the VEGA system (B/Braun-Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany). Patients were evaluated on 7th postoperative day, at the 3-month and 1-year follow-up for wound healing disturbances, residual leg edema, and saphenous neuropathy. The mean age was 67.3 years, male patients dominated (70%), and the leading procedure was CABG (83%). The mean number of harvested venous grafts was 1.9 +/- 1.2 and the mean number of skin incisions was 3.7 +/- 2.2. The mean total vein harvesting time was 40.2 +/- 16.8 minutes. Satisfactory healing was achieved in 98% patients on 7th postoperative day and at the 3-month follow-up all wounds were completely healed. Saphenous neuralgia remained a significant cause of morbidity, although its incidence decreased from 25% presented on 7th postoperative day to 8% presented at 1-year follow-up. Likewise, the incidence of leg edema decreased from 34% on the 7th postoperative day to 7% at 1-year follow-up. Minimally invasive vein harvest is a safe method associated with a significant reduction of wound disturbances. The VEGA system appears to be suitable and effective equipment for MIVH. Nevertheless, residual edema and mainly saphenous neuropathy represent a relatively frequent cause of patient morbidity at the postoperative and mid-term follow-up.

Prospective randomized study comparing the Teleflex Medical SaphLITE Retractor to the Ethicon CardioVations Clearglide Endoscopic System

Background

Several minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting techniques have been developed to reduce morbidities associated with coronary artery bypass grafting. This prospective, randomized study was designed to compare two commonly used minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting techniques, the SaphLITE Retractor System (Teleflex Medical) and the Clearglide Endoscopic Vessel Harvesting System (Ethicon CardioVations, Inc.).

Methods

Between January 2003 and March 2004, a total of 200 patients scheduled for primary, nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting, with or without concomitant procedures were randomized into two groups: SaphLITE (n = 100) and Clearglide (n = 100). Pre-, intra- and postoperative data was collected and subjected to statistical analysis. Randomization provided homogenous groups with respect to preoperative risk factors.

Results

Harvest location for the SaphLITE group was thigh (n = 40), lower leg (n = 5) and both lower leg and thigh (n = 55). The location of harvest for the Clearglide group was thigh (n = 3), lower leg (n = 16) and both lower leg and thigh (n = 81). The mean incision length was 3.6 cm (range, 2–6) in the SaphLITE group versus 2.1 cm (range, 1–4) in the Clearglide group (p < 0.05). The total incision length was 12.9 cm versus 8.9 (p < 0.05) in the SaphLITE and Clearglide groups. Conversion to the open technique occurred in 5 SaphLITE patients and 7 Clearglide patients. Intraoperative leg exploration for bleeding occurred in two of the Clearglide patients and none of the SaphLITE patients. Post-operative complications specifically related to minimally invasive harvesting technique, including a two-week post-discharge visit, were not statistically different between the groups.

Conclusion

The saphenous vein can be safely harvested utilizing the SaphLITE and Clearglide systems. While the Clearglide system allows for fewer incisions (number and length) and less harvest time, these benefits may be outweighed by the increased cost of the Clearglide system compared to the SaphLITE retractor.

Saphenous vein harvest with SaphLITE system versus conventional technique: a prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive saphenous vein harvest (MIVH) techniques have been evaluated and reported with heterogeneous results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of MIVH on the outcomes of postoperative leg wound healing and pain using the SaphLITE retractor system.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-five patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery were randomized to receive either SaphLITE vein harvest (SVH) or conventional open vein harvest (OVH).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in demographics, postoperative mortalities and major complications. For SVH group and OVH group, total leg wound length was 18.33 +/- 7.93 cm vs 46.10 +/- 15.63 cm (p < 0.001), and vein harvest time was 50.70 +/- 16.55 minutes vs 40.35 +/- 16.43 minutes (p < 0.001). In-hospital leg wound healing disturbance (LWHD) rate was 4.7% for SVH group and 1.7% for OVH group (p = 0.190). Delayed LWHD rate was 16.0% for SVH group and 39.5% for OVH group (p < 0.001). Combined, LWHD rate was 20.8% for SVH group and 41.2% for OVH group (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in the worst postoperative leg wound pain or length of hospital stay between the 2 groups. Double-blinded histologic examinations revealed normal vascular structure in the harvested veins from both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that harvesting saphenous vein with SaphLITE retractor system is a good technique which is associated with reduced rate of delayed LWHD, preserved venous structural integrity, and acceptable harvest speed.

Does Minimally Invasive Vein Harvesting Technique Affect the Quality of the Conduit for Coronary Revascularization?

The effect of minimally invasive great saphenous vein harvest on patient morbidity (wound infection and other healing disturbances) has been extensively investigated, yet its impact on the quality of the venous conduit is less well known. This study aims to review the literature with regard to macroscopic quality, postoperative myocardial infarction rates, and angiographic patency of the minimally invasive versus conventionally harvested vein using meta-analytic techniques where appropriate. Results suggest that conduits are comparable in macroscopic quality with minimally invasively harvested veins requiring more repairs prior to grafting. Postoperative myocardial infarction rates were not significantly different between groups, which is supported by the limited evidence on angiographic patency.

Minimally Invasive Saphenous Vein Harvesting Using a Laryngoscope: Procedural, Functional, and Morphologic Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Because commercial minimally invasive harvesting equipments significantly increase operation costs, they are not always available in all clinics worldwide. The aim of this study was to investigate whether minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting using a laryngoscope can be applied efficiently and successfully.

METHODS

Thirty patients were prospectively randomized into two groups. One group underwent a minimally invasive technique using a laryngoscope; the other, open saphenous vein harvest. A modified bridging technique, in which tissue retraction and illumination is achieved with a sterilized laryngoscope, was used for minimally invasive harvesting. Smooth muscle contractile and endothelial functions were tested in vitro using an organ chamber. Morphology was examined with light microscopy.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in harvest times or length of the vein harvested by either of the above mentioned techniques. Total length of the incision in the minimally invasive group was significantly shorter than that in the open group. In follow-ups, no significant complications occurred in either group. Pain and leg edema were significantly less in the minimally invasive group compared to those of the open group. There was no significant difference in response to acetylcholine and 80 mM KCl between veins taken with the laryngoscope compared to veins taken with the traditional open technique. Similarly, histological data was unable to show any significant damage to the vessel wall.

CONCLUSIONS

Because the laryngoscopic saphenectomy does not harm the harvested graft, it can be applied, instead of other minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting systems, with a zero cost, efficiently, successfully, and with satisfactory speed and significant reduction of postoperative leg pain and wound complications.

Leg wound infection after coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus conventional vein harvesting

The great saphenous vein remains the most commonly harvested conduit for revascularization in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Our aim is to compare minimally invasive vein harvest techniques to conventional vein harvest with regards to leg wound infection rates. A meta-analysis of identified randomized controlled trials, reporting a comparison between the two techniques published between 1965 and 2002, was undertaken. The outcome of interest was leg wound infection. Fourteen randomized studies were identified and included in the meta-analysis. Our study revealed that wound infection was significantly lower in the minimally invasive vein harvest group (odds ratio 0.22 with 95% confidence intervals of 0.14 to 0.34). Our study suggests that using minimally invasive techniques might reduce leg wound infection rate following great saphenous vein harvesting for CABG. Further research is required to evaluate the potential benefits of minimally invasive vein harvesting techniques on the cost of postoperative care and quality of the harvested vein.