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 Author home page(s): Karthik R Vaidyanathan Madhu N Sankar Kotturathu M Cherian Permission Requests Google Scholar Articles by Vaidyanathan, K. R Articles by Cherian, K. M PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Vaidyanathan, K. R Articles by Cherian, K. M

Endoscopic vs Conventional Vein Harvesting: a Prospective Analysis

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Frontier Lifeline and Dr KM Cherian Heart Foundation, International Center for Cardiothoracic and Vascular Diseases, Chennai, India

For reprint information contact: Karthik R Vaidyanathan, MS, Tel: 91 44 4201 7575, Fax: 91 44 2656 5150, Email: rkvdoc{at}rediffmail.com, Frontier Lifeline and Dr. KM Cherian Heart Foundation, International Center for Cardiothoracic and Vascular Diseases, R-30 Ambattur Industrial Estate Road, Chennai 600101, India.

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.