Postoperative and midterm outcomes of minimally invasive and endoscopic great saphenous vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting - a prospective analysis.

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether the postoperative and midterm outcomes of minimally invasive and endoscopic great saphenous vein harvesting are comparable.

METHODS

From February 2004 to September 2006, 120 patients underwent minimally invasive vein harvesting, and subsequently 150 patients had endoscopic vein harvesting for CABG. Patients were evaluated prospectively for wound-healing disturbances, residual leg oedema, pain intensity and saphenous neuropathy on the 7th postoperative day and after 3 months.

RESULTS

Both harvesting techniques were associated with a low incidence of wound-healing disturbances; nevertheless, minimally invasive vein harvesting was associated with a significantly higher incidence of residual oedema (28 % vs. 13 %; P < 0.05), (19 % vs. 6 %; P < 0.001), pain (20 % vs. 9 %; P < 0.05), (10 % vs. 6 %; P < 0.05), and saphenous neuropathy (23 % vs. 7 %; P < 0.001) (14 % vs. 3 %; P < 0.001) during follow-up on the 7th postoperative day as well as 3 months after surgery, respectively. Mean harvesting time (40.6 +/- 15.5 vs. 43.9 +/- 10.2 min; P = 0.09), conversion rate (3 % vs. 2 %; P = 0.71), and injury per conduit (0.3 +/- 0.2 vs. 0.3 +/- 0.1; P = 0.91) were comparable for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic vein harvesting seems to be superior to minimally invasive vein harvesting in terms of a significant reduction of residual leg oedema, pain intensity and particularly saphenous neuropathy in the postoperative and midterm follow-up.