Experienced operators achieve superior patency and wound complication rates with endoscopic great saphenous vein harvest compared with open harvest in lower extremity bypasses

Kronick, Matthew; Liem, Timothy K.; Jung, Enjae; Abraham, Cherrie Z.; Moneta, Gregory L.; Landry, Gregory J.

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2019.02.043

Cited by 9 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 34 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the potential advantages of energy based-sealing devices is its use for endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH). This method has shown fewer wound complications, including lower infection rate and readmissions [30,31]. However, early studies and reviews of EVH suggested a lower graft patency rate due to excessive manipulation of the saphenous vein [32][33][34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“In Vitro” Evaluation of Energy‐Based Sealing of Graft Side Branches in Bypass Surgery

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Our objective was to compare the in vitro efficacy of electrothermal bipolar [EB] vessel sealing and ultrasonic harmonic scalpel [HS] versus mechanical interruption, with conventional ties or surgical clips (SC), in sealing saphenous vein (SV) collaterals, during its eventual preparation for bypass surgery. Methods Experimental in vitro study on 30 segments of SV. Each fragment included two collaterals at least 2 mm in diameter. One of them was sealed by ligation with 3/0 silk ties (control) and the other one with EB (n = 10), HS (n = 10) or medium-6 mm SC (n = 10). After incorporation in a closed circuit with pulsatile flow, the pressure was progressively increased until causing rupture. Collateral diameter, burst pressure, leak point, and histological study were recorded. Results Burst pressure was higher for SC (1320.20 ± 373.847 mmHg) as compared with EB (942.2 ± 344.9 mmHg, p = 0.065), and especially with HS (637.00 ± 320.61 mmHg, p = 0.0001). No statistically significant difference between EB and HS was found, and bursting always happened at supraphysiological pressures. The leak point for HS was always detected in the sealing zone (10/10), while for EB and SC, it occurred in the sealing zone only in 6/10(60%) and 4/10(40%), respectively (p = 0.015). Conclusions Energy delivery devices showed similar efficacy and safety in sealing of SV side branches. Although bursting pressure was lower than with tie ligature or SC, non-inferiority efficacy was shown at the range of physiological pressures in both, EB and HS. Due to their speed and easy handling, they may be useful in the preparation of the venous graft during revascularization surgery. However, remaining questions about healing process, potential spread of tissue damage and sealing durability, will require further analysis.

show abstract