This Article Full Text (PDF) References 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 Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Voellinger, D. C. Articles by Jordan, W. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Voellinger, D. C. Articles by Jordan, W. D., Jr Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Video-Assisted Vein Harvest: A Single Institution's Experience of 103 Peripheral Bypass Cases

William D. Jordan, Jr, MD

Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama

Traditional harvesting of the greater saphenous vein (GSV) has meant a long, continuous incision with the potential for increased morbidity, pain, and hospital stay. The authors have used a minimally invasive video-assisted technique in an attempt to reduce these complications. In this report, they retrospectively analyze a series of 103 cases of videoassisted saphenous vein harvests for vascular bypass procedures. All patients from September 1994 to May 1997 who underwent video-assisted saphenous vein harvest were reviewed for vein harvest time, hospital length of stay, surgical complications, graft patency, and clinical outcome. Operative technique used limited incisions, video-assisted dissection, and two different subcutaneous retractors-endoplastic (Type I) (Snowden Pencer, Tucker, GA) and endosaphenous (Type II) (Ethicon Endosurgery, Cincinnati, OH).

Ninety-six patients underwent 103 operations for lower and upper extremity vascular disease. For all patients, the average time of vein removal was 0.74 cm vein/minute operative time, for procedures with the Type I retractor 0.63 cm vein/minute, for procedures with the Type II retractor 1.07 cm vein/minute (p0.0001). Postoperative length of stay (LOS) averaged 7.7 days (median 5 days) for all patients and was longer between patients with rest pain (6.4 days) and tissue loss (10.1 days) vs claudicants (4.4 days) (p<0.05), between patients with tibioperoneal anastomoses (10.0 days) vs patients with popliteal anastomoses (6.0 days) (p<0.05), and between Type I patients (8.3 days) and Type II patients (6.9 days) (p=0.03). Nine wound complications occurred (8.7%), two of which (1.9%) were directly related to the video-assisted technique. Cumulative graft patency was 84% ±9% after 18 months. According to the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery reporting standards for lower extremity occlusive disease, patient outcome averaged +2.03 for all patients, and was improved between patients with claudication (+2.82) vs patients with rest pain (+1.50) (p<0.05) and between Type II patients (+2.36) vs Type I patients (+1.64) (p=0.01).

Video-assisted saphenous vein harvest can be accomplished with low morbidity and provides a satisfactory conduit. The patients had a short postoperative LOS, a satisfactory wound complication rate, and a good operative outcome. The Type II saphenous vein retractor decreased operative time, shortened hospital LOS, and improved outcome.

Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Vol. 32, No. 6, 545-557 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/153857449803200605


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?