This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Martin, J. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Martin, J. D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Defining the Learning Curve of the Endovascular In Situ Saphenous Vein Bypass: Operative Data from 115 Cases by Recently Trained Surgeons

West Shore Surgical Associates, Annapolis, Maryland

To record surgeons' results of endovascular in situ saphenous vein (EISV) bypasses during the learning curve phase, randomly selected patients were evaluated who were undergoing EISV bypass performed by surgeons who had been recently trained in the Side Branch Occlusion system. An independent observer recorded the technical details at each operation on a standardized data sheet that included: number of coils deployed, misdeployed coils, additional incisions required to occlude side branches, irrigation volume, vein preparation time, operative time, and technical complications. Operations were stratified into four subjective categories based on the technical aspects of the operation: (1) good results; (2) good results, minor technical issues; (3) good results, major technical issues; and (4) poor results. Sixty-four surgeons performed 115 EISV bypasses. Eighty-seven (76%) of the procedures were classified as either good results or minor technical problems. Major technical problems occurred in 10 patients, and 18 patients (15%) had poor results. Neither site of the distal anastomosis nor the saphenous vein length affected the technical success of the procedure. The average volume of irrigation was 3,000 mL and mean vein preparation time was 84 minutes (range 15-300 minutes). Coils were misdeployed in 59 (51%) cases, and 49 patients (42%) required additional incisions on the leg. EISV bypass offers significant theoretical advantages over open in situ vein bypass; however, it is challenging, and technical complications occurred in nearly 25% of cases during the learning phase. Aberrant venous anatomy poses the greatest challenge to the success of the EISV, and the ability of the surgeon to recognize and respond appropriately to these anomalies often dictates the success of the procedure. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate the clinical benefits of this new technique.

Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Vol. 33, No. 6, 655-661 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/153857449903300611


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