内窥镜采集大隐静脉在冠状动脉旁路移植术后近、中期的疗效分析

目的比较冠状动脉旁路移植术（CABG）中应用内窥镜采集与直视切开采集大隐静脉的近、中期临床效果。方法纳入2005年4月~2010年1月行CABG治疗且随访资料完整的冠心病患者268例。根据大隐静脉的采集术式分为两组,使用内窥镜采集大隐静脉的患者进入内镜组（EVH组,n=129）,采用直视切开采集大隐静脉的患者进入切开组（OVH组,n=139）,应用64排螺旋CT（64-MSCT）对比分析手术后3个月、1年、3年大隐静脉桥通畅率。结果 EVH组与OVH组术后3个月、1年、3年大隐静脉桥通畅率均无统计学差异[分别为（88.0%vs.85.6%）,（78.9% vs.79.9%）,（72.2% vs.71.8%）, P＜0.05],但EVH组采集时间更长[（50.23±5.87）min vs.（38.65±7.96）min],破损情况更多[（1.51±0.19） vs.（0.84±0.04）],差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论内窥镜和直视切开两种采集方式的大隐静脉桥近、中期通畅率接近,但内窥镜法采集时间较长,静脉破损较多。     

内窥镜下取小腿大隐静脉用于冠状动脉搭桥的临床效果

目的:评价内窥镜下采集小腿大隐静脉,用于非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术(off pump coronary artery bypass grafting,OPCABG)的临床效果。方法:选取OPCABG患者269例,根据小腿大隐静脉取材方式将患者分为,内窥镜血管采集(endoscopic vein harvesting,EVH)组和全程切开(open vein harvesting,OVH)组,比较两组取材时间、取材质量、切口并发症、围术期和术后近期随访时的临床效果及患者评价。结果:EVH组取材长度、血管质量和取材时间可满足冠状动脉搭桥手术需要。与OVH组相比,EVH组术后切口并发症发生率和下肢水肿发生率显著降低,且差异有统计学意义,但皮下组织瘀斑发生率较OVH组高。取材时间EVH组平均35 min,OVH组平均45 min,差异有统计学意义。远端吻合口数目EVH组3.2个/例,OVH组3.1个/例,差异无统计学意义。两组围术期心肌梗死发生率差异无统计学意义。本研究中,所有患者均痊愈出院,术后平均随访4～5个月,均无心绞痛再发。结论:CABG术中采取EVH取小腿大隐静脉的方法有效可行。其作为一种微创取血管的方法,取材质量良好、切口小、并发症更少,得到了医生和患者的认可。     

冠状动脉旁路移植术中内窥镜采集大隐静脉200例经验总结

目的探讨内窥镜采集大隐静脉技术的学习曲线及减少对大隐静脉的损伤、提高移植血管的长期通畅率和临床效果的方法。方法选择2008年8月至2012年12月在广东省人民医院行冠状动脉旁路移植术的患者250例为研究对象,分为经内窥镜采集大隐静脉移植物组(200例)和桥式切开采集大隐静脉移植物组(50例)。比较两组术中大隐静脉损伤情况、手术时间以及术后伤口并发症的发生率。结果在完整学习曲线后,两组大隐静脉直接损伤情况比较,差异无统计学意义[(1.22±0.44)个vs.(1.23±0.51)个,P>0.05];两组手术时间比较,差异无统计学意义[(38±4)min vs.(38±6)min,P>0.05]。经过100例采集经验后,内窥镜组手术时间缩短[(27±4)min vs.(38±6)min,P<0.05];内窥镜采集组术后伤口愈合不良发生率较低(0%vs.22%,P<0.05)、血肿发生率低(0%vs.4%,P<0.05)。结论保证足够的培训期,拥有合理的采集技术下,冠状动脉旁路移植术中内窥镜采集大隐静脉对大隐静脉移植物的直接损伤与桥式切开采集比较无明显差异,但伤口并发症明显减少,手术时间缩短。     

What is the impact of endoscopic vein harvesting on clinical outcomes following coronary artery bypass graft surgery?

Objective Endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) is increasingly used as an alternative to open vein harvesting (OVH) for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Concerns about the safety of EVH with regard to midterm clinical outcomes following CABG have been raised. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of EVH on short-term and midterm clinical outcomes following CABG. Design This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected multi-centre data. A propensity score was developed for EVH and used to match patients who underwent EVH to those who underwent OVH. Setting Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Plymouth Derriford Hospital and the University Hospital of South Manchester were the main study settings. Patients There were 4709 consecutive patients who underwent isolated CABG using EVH or OVH between January 2008 and July 2010. Main outcome measures The main outcome measure was a combined end point of death, repeat revascularisation or myocardial infarction. Secondary outcome measures included in-hospital morbidity, in-hospital mortality and midterm mortality. Results Compared to OVH, EVH was not associated with an increased risk of the main outcome measure at a median follow-up of 22 months (HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.74). EVH was also not associated with an increased risk of in-hospital morbidity, in-hospital mortality (0.9% vs 1.1%, p=0.71) or midterm mortality (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.66). Conclusions This multi-centre study demonstrates that at a median follow-up of 22 months, EVH was not associated with adverse short-term or midterm clinical outcomes. However, before the safety of EVH can be clearly determined, further analyses of long-term clinical outcomes are required.     

No-touch与EVH获取大隐静脉桥血管的近中期临床结果分析

目的 比较no-touch和内窥镜获取（endoscopic vein harvesting, EVH）两种不同的大隐静脉移植物获取方式对冠状动脉旁路移植术（coronary artery bypass grafting, CABG）术后早期临床效果及近中期移植物通畅率的影响。 方法 回顾性分析西安交通大学第一附属医院心血管外科2018年7月至2019年12月行CABG患者151例,其中no-touch技术组获取大隐静脉56例;EVH组获取大隐静脉95例。所有患者采取胸骨正中切口入路,非体外或体外循环辅助下完成搭桥手术。统计两组间平均桥血管远端吻合口数量、左乳内动脉吻合口数量及静脉桥远端吻合数量的差异;分析比较两组术后死亡及早期并发症发生情况以及术后切口并发症如血肿、脂肪液化等差异。患者出院前及术后1年行冠脉动脉CT血管成像检查（CTA）以评估移植血管桥近中期的通畅情况。 结果 No-touch和EVH两组在年龄、性别构成、危险因素、术前诊断类型等方面均无统计学差异。术中两组左乳内动脉吻合口数量及静脉桥远端吻合数量等差异均无统计学意义。两组均无手术死亡。在术后早期并发症方面无显著性差异;但在下肢切口并发症中水肿、切口处麻木、疼痛在no-touch组中尤为显著（P<0.05）。术后冠脉CTA复查提示,术后早期桥血管总体通畅率、两组间左乳内动脉及大隐静脉桥血管通畅率均无差异。术后1年总体桥血管通畅率no-touch组要优于EVH组（P<0.05）,其中左乳内动脉通畅率无差异,大隐静脉桥血管no-touch组通畅率要明显高于EVH组（P<0.05）。 结论 No-touch技术获取静脉桥血管对于CABG患者的近、中期临床效果满意,且中期桥血管通畅率要优于EVH组。该技术可行、安全、有效,值得在CABG中进一步推广。     

微创采集大隐静脉对冠脉搭桥病人呼吸循环功能的影响

目的：探讨经内窥镜采集大隐静脉技术对呼吸循环功能的影响。方法：冠状动脉搭桥手术（CABG）40例，采集大隐静脉随机分为经开放切口（OVH）组和应用内窥镜（EVH）组。测定并比较两组采集过程中的循环动力学及血气指标。结果：两组各时点心率、平均动脉压无统计学差异；EVH组随CO2气体充填时间延长，二氧化碳分压、呼气末CO2分压、乳酸浓度进行性升高，与OVH组取血管过程中的相比差异有显著性（P〈0．05）。结论：EVH组循环指标能够维持稳定，应防范高碳酸血症对氧供需平衡的不良影响。     

微创静脉桥获取术在冠脉搭桥术中的应用及学习曲线

目的研究冠脉搭桥术中应用内窥镜获取大隐静脉的可行性,探讨住院医师学习此项技术的学习曲线。方法选取北京宣武医院2007年1月至2008年2月间行择期冠脉搭桥术118例,分为内窥镜大隐静脉获取术（EVH）组40例,全程切开大隐静脉获取术（OVH）组78例。对其高危因素,术后并发症进行比较,并对EVH组所取静脉进行组织学评价。EVH组患者,按手术时间先后分4个亚组（G1～G4）,每组10例,比较获取时间、静脉长度、手术结果等情况。结果两组患者在下肢切口并发症的高危因素上无差别,但并发症的总发生率有显著差别。两组各有1例死亡,均死于术后循环衰竭。两组静脉获取时间相当,获取的静脉长度比较有差别。两组术后住院时间无明显差别,但费用有显著差别。4个亚组在静脉长度上无明显差异,长度-时间指数由G1组的0.41±0.08显著提高到G4组的0.75±0.06,这一变化代表了微创EVH的学习曲线。结论微创EVH作为一种新兴技术有着广泛的应用前景,在降低术后下肢伤口并发症上有明显优势,尤其适用于存在高危因素的患者。但对它的熟练掌握需要一个学习过程。     

Endoscopic Vein Harvest in Lower-Extremity Bypass—Is It Preferable to Prosthetic Bypass or Standard Vein Harvest?

Purpose Endoscopic saphenous vein harvest (EVH) was compared with prosthetic bypass (PB) and open vein harvest (OVH) to determine its impact on short-term complications and long-term patency in lower-extermity bypass(LEB). Methods Thirty-six patients underwent PB, 19 patients underwent OVH, and 33 patients underwent EVH between March 2003 and July 2004 There were statistically significant differences in the incidence of coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension among the three groups. Sixty-five percent of total procedures (57/88) were performed for limb salvage. Sixty-eight percent of EVH patient, 79% of OVH patients, and 58% of PB patients underwent bypass for ischemic rest pain or limb salvage. Results Total 30-day complications or death occurred in 3% EVH , 15.8% OVH, and 16.7% PB (p =0.14). Mean length of stay was 5 days for PB,8 days for OVH and 7 days for EVH (p = 0.39). Mean follow up was 11.5 ± 7.8 months (range-1–30) with a median of 11 months. Conclusions Thirty-day overall complication rates clinically were less in the EVH group than in the OVH and PB groups. One-year patency and limb salvage were similar in all groups. Length of stay was equivalent in all groups. EVH is a perferred method for saphenous vein harvest because of a decrease in the incidence of perioperative complications and equivalent length of stay and one-year patency.     

Endoscopic vein harvesting

Coronary artery bypass grafting is the most common cardiac surgical procedure performed worldwide and the long saphenous vein the most common conduit for this. When performed as an open vein harvest (OVH), the incision on each leg can be up to 85cm long, making it the longest incision of any routine procedure. This confers a high degree of morbidity to the procedure. Endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) methods were popularised over two decades ago, demonstrating significant benefits over OVH in terms of leg wound complications including surgical site infections. They also appeared to hasten return to usual activities and wound healing and became popular particularly in North America. Subgroup analyses of two trials designed for other purposes created a period of uncertainty between 2009–2013 while the impact of endoscopic vein harvesting on vein graft patency and major adverse cardiac events was scrutinised. Large observational studies debunked the findings of increased mortality in the short-term, allowing practitioners and governing bodies to regain some confidence in the procedure. A well designed, adequately powered, randomised controlled trial published in 2019 also definitively demonstrated that there was no increase in death, myocardial infarction or repeat revascularisation with endoscopic vein harvest. Endoscopic vein harvest is a Class IIa indication in European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and a Class I indication in International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery (ISMICS) guidelines.     

The transition from open to endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting and its clinical impact: The Texas Heart Institute experience

Open saphenous vein harvesting can be associated with wound complications, incision pain, prolonged convalescence, and poor cosmetic results. Endoscopic vein harvesting has been widely used for prevention of these problems. We compared outcomes of open and endoscopic vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting at the Texas Heart Institute. We retrospectively analyzed data from 1,573 consecutive coronary artery bypass procedures performed at our institution during a 20-month period. Each procedure included saphenectomy by endoscopic vein harvesting (n = 588) performed by physician assistants, or by traditional open vein harvesting (n = 985) performed by physicians or physician assistants. The primary outcome variable was the incidence of postoperative leg infections. Both groups were similar in terms of preoperative risk factors. After surgery, leg wound infections were significantly less frequent in the endoscopic vein harvesting group (3/588, 0.5%) than in the open vein harvesting group (27/985, 2.7%; P < 0.002). The most common organism involved in leg infections was Staphylococcus (20/30, 66%): S. aureus was present in 14 of 30 infections (47%). Open vein harvesting was the only significant independent risk factor for leg infection. We conclude that endoscopic vein harvesting reduces leg wound infections, is safe and reliable, and should be the standard of care when venous conduits are required for coronary artery bypass grafting and vascular procedures. Although the transition from open to endoscopic vein harvesting can be challenging in institutions, it can be successful if operators receive adequate training in endoscopic technique and are supported by surgeons and staff.     

Endoscopic vs conventional vein harvesting: a prospective analysis

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.     

Choice of Vein‐Harvest Technique for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Rationale and Design of the REGROUP Trial

The Randomized Endo‐vein Graft Prospective (REGROUP) trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov  NCT01850082) is a randomized, intent‐to‐treat, 2‐arm, parallel‐design, multicenter study funded by the Cooperative Studies Program (CSP No. 588) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Cardiac surgeons at 16 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers with technical expertise in performing both endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) and open vein harvesting (OVH) were recruited as the REGROUP surgeon participants. Subjects requiring elective or urgent coronary artery bypass grafting using cardiopulmonary bypass with use of ≥1 saphenous vein graft will be screened for enrollment using pre‐established inclusion/exclusion criteria. Enrolled subjects (planned N = 1150) will be randomized to 1 of the 2 arms (EVH or OVH) after an experienced vein harvester has been assigned. The primary outcomes measure is the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Subject assessments will be performed at multiple times, including at baseline, intraoperatively, postoperatively, and at discharge (or 30 days after surgery, if still hospitalized). Assessment of leg‐wound complications will be completed at 6 weeks after surgery. Telephone follow‐ups will occur at 3‐month intervals after surgery until the participating sites are decommissioned after the trial's completion (approximately 4.5 years after the full study startup). To assess long‐term outcomes, centralized follow‐up of MACE for 2 additional years will be centrally performed using VA and non‐VA clinical and administrative databases. The primary MACE outcome will be compared between the 2 arms, EVH and OVH, at the end of the trial duration.     

Endoscopic harvesting of the greater saphenous vein for aortocoronary bypass grafting.

We conducted an observational study to evaluate the effectiveness of an endoscopic technique for harvesting the greater saphenous vein for aortocoronary bypass grafting. We hypothesized that the endoscopic technique would minimize the risk of postoperative wound complications. From May 1997 to July 1998, we used an endoscopic technique to harvest the greater saphenous vein in 50 patients who underwent aortocoronary artery bypass grafting. Twenty-five of the patients had an increased risk for wound complications due to preexisting diabetes, obesity, peripheral vascular disease, or lymphedema. The average duration of the procedure was 39 minutes (range, 11 to 70 minutes). The average length of the harvested vein was 58 cm (range, 25 to 85 cm). We made an average of 2.5 incisions per patient (range, 1 to 5 incisions), and the average incision length was 7 cm (range, 3 to 10 cm). Two patients (4%) required conversion to an open technique using 5 small incisions. Postoperative complications included 1 wound infection (2%) and 1 small hematoma (2%). Two patients (4%) had minor erythema at the incision site, and 5 patients (10%) had postoperative lymphedema. The most common problem, ecchymosis, was seen in 6 patients (12%). None required repeat hospitalization or reoperation for wound complications. In our study, the endoscopic approach yielded superior cosmetic results, and reduced wound complications and discomfort, compared with traditional methods of vein harvesting. After gaining expertise with this minimally invasive method of vein harvesting, a surgeon can safely remove the saphenous vein in 20 to 30 minutes.     

Endoscopic versus bridging technique of saphenous vein graft harvesting—One year results

Aim/objectiveProspective study comparing objective and subjective parameters of patients undergoing myocardial revascularization surgery. Venous graft were harvested by both endoscopic and the bridging method.MethodologyIn the period from 01/2009 to 03/2010, we performed 45 combined harvests of v. saphena magna using the endoscopic and bridging method. Patients went through an ambulatory control of wound complications after one week and after one month. Another inspection was carried out by telephone after three months when the patients completed a short questionnaire. After one year, details of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were collected. The agreement of patients was obtained prior to their participation in this study.ResultsThe average age of patients was 66.3 years (55–84), the average BMI was 28.9 (24.1–36.6) and in the observed group men predominated (77.8%). Diabetes was present in 24.4%, varicose of lower extremities in 20% and peripheral arterial occlusive disease in 11.1% of patients. The average length of harvested vein, the velocity of harvest and the number of sutured defects per vein were quite similar.Early complications occurred in a total of 5 patients (11.1%), after completion of the endoscopic harvest in 1 patient (2.2%) and after the bridging harvest in 4 patients (8.9%).In the questionnaire completed three months after the surgery patients mentioned less pain, better cosmetic results and greater overall satisfaction in the endoscopic harvest (75.6% of patients). If patients had had the choice, in most cases (88.9%) they would have preferred the endoscopic harvest to the bridging technique harvest. For the vast majority of respondents (93.3%) a scar on the chest and a scar on the lower extremities after harvesting of vein grafts are equal from a cosmetic point of view.Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were reported over one year in 8.9% of patients.ConclusionsComparing the two minimally invasive techniques (endoscopic and bridging) in the selected group of patients we have demonstrated a lower incidence of wound complications and greater patient satisfaction with endoscopic harvesting methods. Both of these minimally invasive methods are safe for the patients, which were demonstrated by low occurrence of MACCE.     

"Endoscopic Saphenous Vein Harvest Decreases Leg Wound Complication in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Patients"

A bstract Background: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the most common procedure performed in adult cardiovascular surgery. The most frequently used conduit is the greater saphenous vein. Using traditional methods, the complication rate of the leg is relatively high (up to 24%). To decrease the complication rate, we used the Endo-Path to harvest the greater saphenous vein. Methods and Results: From May 1997 through March 1999, a total of 135 patients received the CABG operation. We excluded the patients who died immediately postoperatively or had concomitant surgical procedures. Sixty patients received the endoscopic saphenous vein harvest procedure (group A), while another 59 patients (group B) did not. No important differences were noted between the two groups in respect to the number of distal anastomoses, length of harvested vein, total surgical time, and length of ICU stay. However, the leg wound complication rate decreased from 20.3% to 5.0% (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Although the long-term patency rate needs time to be proven, the endoscopic greater saphenous vein harvest method is an attractive and effective method.     

Current status of endoscopic vein harvest in cardiac and peripheral vascular surgery

Endoscopic harvesting of the saphenous vein (EVH) has been shown to minimize the morbidity associated with saphenous vein harvest for either coronary artery bypass or lower extremity bypass. However, the long-term benefit of a bypass procedure is predicated on conduit patency. Several studies suggest decreased patency with EVH compared with open vein harvest. Possible reasons for this discrepancy have been investigated by microscopic, electron microscopic, and functional studies of venous endothelium and contractile function of harvested veins with conflicting results. This review details the results of these studies. In addition, the clinical results of coronary bypass graft and lower extremity bypass with open vein harvest and EVH are described in regard to early wound complications and short- and long-term patency.     

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.     

Endoscopic vs. conventional vein harvesting: first results with a new, non-disposable system.

BACKGROUND: Most of the grafts used in coronary bypass surgery are still venous grafts. The preferred vein for bypass surgery is the long saphenous vein. Severe wound complications caused by saphenous vein harvesting occur in 1 % to 3 % of cases. Minor complications that do not need surgical revision occur in up to 43 % of cases. We developed an endoscopic harvesting technique using non-disposable instruments to reduce wound complications caused by vein harvesting. METHOD: In a retrospective study, the occurrence of wound complications, haematoma, postoperative pain, ambulation, sensory disturbances and patient satisfaction were studied (n = 182). Patients who had either endoscopically harvested (n = 91) or conventionally harvested (n = 91) saphenous vein grafts were reviewed. RESULTS: Results were collected for 173 patients. The overall prevalence of wound complications was 18.7 %. The incidence of wound healing complications could be reduced significantly (p = 0.015) from 15.3 % to 3.4 % using the endoscopic technique. In the endoscopic group, postoperative ambulation was significantly (p = 0.002) easier, patient satisfaction was significantly (p = 0.007) higher, and postoperative leg swelling (p = 0.003) and haematoma (p = 0.004) could be reduced significantly. The occurrence of postoperative pain and sensory disturbances did not differ significantly. COMMENT: We conclude that the used endoscopic vein harvesting is a safe and cost effective method that can significantly reduce wound complications. An ongoing prospective study should establish our demonstrated data.     

Endoscopic radial artery harvesting may be the procedure of choice for coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the neurologic and cosmetic outcome of the endoscopic radial artery harvesting (ERH) technique in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS AND RESULTS: The study group comprised 257 consecutive patients who underwent CABG between January 2001 and August 2005 at Kyungpook National University Hospital. The first 157 patients (open group) underwent conventional open harvesting of the radial artery and the second 100 (endoscopic group) had endoscopic harvesting. The severity of both the motor and sensory symptoms, as well as the cosmetic results, was evaluated immediately and at least 6 months after surgery. In the open group, 29 patients experienced neuralgia along the distribution of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve, but none in the endoscopic group patients experienced any sensory abnormalities (p<0.05). However, neuralgia along the distribution of the superficial radial nerve was similarly observed in both groups. No one in either group complained of any motor symptoms. The patients in the endoscopic group were also satisfied with the cosmetic results. CONCLUSIONS: ERH resulted in less neurologic complications of the hand and forearm, and outstanding aesthetics. ERH may be the procedure of choice for radial artery harvesting.     

内窥镜获取大隐静脉在冠脉搭桥术中的应用研究

目的探讨内窥镜获取大隐静脉在冠脉搭桥术中的应用价值。方法根据自愿原则将569例冠脉搭桥患者分2组：内窥镜组303例、常规组266例,比较两组手术操作和并发症情况。结果内窥镜组术后并发症明显少于常规组,在获取时间、美容效果及术后恢复方面具有优势。在近期症状改善、搭桥支数等方面两种方法基本相同。结论内窥镜获取大隐静脉具有明显优势,随费用的降低,可考虑成为常规首选方法。