HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Aziz, O. Articles by Darzi, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Aziz, O. Articles by Darzi, A. Related Collections Coronary disease Minimally invasive surgery

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:324-333
© 2006 Elsevier Science NL

Review

Minimally invasive conduit harvesting: a systematic review

Department of Surgical Oncology and Technology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 10th Floor QEQM Building, St. Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY, United Kingdom

Received 4 September 2005; received in revised form 30 October 2005; accepted 14 November 2005.

^_* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 207 886 1310; fax: +44 207 886 1810. (Email: tathan5253{at}aol.com).

Minimally invasive conduit harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass grafting have developed over the past decade, aiming to reduce the morbidity and recovery time associated with the procedure, whilst preserving the quality of the conduit. Two types of commonly harvested free conduits include the great saphenous vein and the radial artery. Although much research has focussed on comparing less invasive and conventional harvest techniques, there is at present no consensus on the areas where one technique is superior to the other. Aspects of conduits that deserve appreciation when comparing minimally invasive and open harvesting techniques include wound healing at the harvest site, the macroscopic, histological and functional quality of the conduit, but perhaps most importantly its long-term angiographic patency. This paper aims to review the literature comparing minimally invasive and conventional conduit harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass grafting, with regard to the previously mentioned factors. A literature search of Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was used to identify comparative studies published between 1997 and 2005. Outcomes of interest included: wound infection, non-infective healing disturbances, post-operative pain, neurological disturbance, mobility, patient satisfaction, conduit quality (macroscopic, histological and functional) and long-term conduit patency. A scoring system was applied and used to grade the quality of the evidence, based on which a recommendation of it being ‘good’ (Grade A), ‘fair’ (Grade B), or ‘insufficient’ (Grade C) was made. Results showed that there was ‘good’ evidence to suggest that wound infection and non-infective complications are reduced with minimally invasive harvest as compared to conventional vein harvest. The evidence suggesting that post-operative pain and mobilisation is reduced after minimally invasive vein harvest and that once harvested, the conduits are macroscopically comparable to conventional ones, is only ‘fair’. Finally, although initial reports are encouraging, there is at present insufficient evidence to comment on whether minimally invasive radial artery harvesting is better than that of conventional open surgery. Wounds from minimally invasively harvested venous conduits appear to be less prone to complications although more comparative evidence on conduit quality and long-term patency is eagerly awaited.

Key Words: Coronary artery bypass • Conduit • Minimally invasive • Endoscopic

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Krishnamoorthy, O. Najam, U. A. Khan, P. Waterworth, J. E. Fildes, and N. Yonan Randomized prospective study comparing conventional subcuticular skin closure with dermabond skin glue after saphenous vein harvesting. Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 2009; 88(5): 1445 - 1449. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. D. Lopes, G. E. Hafley, K. B. Allen, T. B. Ferguson, E. D. Peterson, R. A. Harrington, R. H. Mehta, C. M. Gibson, M. J. Mack, N. T. Kouchoukos, et al. Endoscopic versus Open Vein-Graft Harvesting in Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery N. Engl. J. Med., July 16, 2009; 361(3): 235 - 244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. S. Halpin, S. D. Barnett, L. L. Henry, E. Choi, and N. Ad Public Health Reporting: The United States Perspective Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, September 1, 2008; 12(3): 191 - 202. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Rao, O. Aziz, S. Deeba, A. Chow, C. Jones, Z. Ni, L. Papastavrou, S. Rahman, A. Darzi, and T. Athanasiou Is minimally invasive harvesting of the great saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass surgery a cost-effective technique? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2008; 135(4): 809 - 815. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Luckraz, J. Lowe, N. Pugh, and A. A. Azzu Pre-operative long saphenous vein mapping predicts vein anatomy and quality leading to improved post-operative leg morbidity Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, April 1, 2008; 7(2): 188 - 191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Falk and F. W. Mohr Minimally Invasive Myocardial Revascularization Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 697 - 710. [Full Text]