Wound complications associated with long incisions used to harvest the greater saphenous vein are common and well documented. We compared leg wound infection rates, wound healing disturbances (WHDs), length of vein harvested, vein harvest time, and total surgical time between minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting (MIVH) and conventional vein harvesting (CVH) techniques. This meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in wound infections in favor of the MIVH group (odds ratio = 0.19; 95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.25) and a significant reduction in WHDs in favor of the MIVH group (odds ratio = 0.26; 95% confidence interval = 0.20-0.34). The MIVH and CVH techniques are equivalent with respect to saphenous vein harvest time, saphenous vein harvest length, and total surgical time. A visual inspection of “funnel” plots suggests a mild to moderate publication bias. This meta-analysis suggests that leg wound infections and wound healing disturbances are reduced using MIVH techniques.
Athanasiou T. , Aziz O., Skapinakis P., et al. Leg wound infection after coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus conventional vein harvesting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76:2141-2146.
2.
Athanasiou T. , Aziz O., Al-Ruzzeh S., et al. Are wound healing disturbances and length of hospital stay reduced with minimally invasive vein harvest? A meta-analysis . Eur J Cardiothoracic Surg. 2004;26:1015-1026.
3.
Moher D., Cook DJ, Eastwood S., Olkin I., Rennie D., Stroup DFImproving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-1900.
4.
Mantel N., Haenszel W.Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:719-748.
5.
Yusuf S., Peto R., Lewis J., Collins R., Sleight P.Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985;27:335-371.
6.
DerSimonian R., Laird N.Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-188.
7.
Paul SR, Donner A.Small sample performance of tests of homogeneity of odds ratios in K 2 × 2 tables. Stat Med. 1992;11:159-165.
Higgins JP, Thompson SGQuantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-1558.
10.
Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., Minder C.Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-634.
11.
Galbraith RFA note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999;7:889-894.
12.
Thompson SG , Sharp SJExplaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med. 1999;18:2693-2708.
13.
Bax L., Yu LM, Ikeda N., Tsuruta H., Moons KGDevelopment and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:50.
14.
Bax L., Yu LM, Ikeda N., Tsuruta H., Moons KGMIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data . Version 1.7. http://mix-for-meta-analysis.info/ ; 2008.
15.
Allen KB, Heimansohn DA, Robison RJ, et al. Risk factors for leg wound complications following endoscopic versus traditional saphenous vein harvesting. Heart Surg Forum . 2000;3:325-330.
16.
Carpino PA, Khabbaz KR, Bojar RM, et al. Clinical benefits of endoscopic vein harvesting in patients with risk factors for saphenectomy wound infections undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:69-75.
17.
Cisowski M. , Wites M., Gerber W., Drzewiecka-Gerber A., Bochenek A.Minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting-comparison of three less invasive methods. Med Sci Monit. 2000;6: 735-739.
18.
Fabricius AM , Diegeler A., Doll N., Weidenbach H., Mohr FWMinimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting techniques: morphology and postoperative outcome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;70:473-478.
19.
Galbraith GF , Pica-Furey W.A retrospective comparative study of open and endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting. J Endovasc Ther . 2000;7:460-468.
20.
Marty B., von Segesser LK, Tozzi P., et al. Benefits of endoscopic vein harvesting. World J Surg. 2000;24: 1104-1107.
21.
Düsterhöft V., Bauer M., Buz S., Schaumann B., Hetzer R.Wound-healing disturbances after vein harvesting for CABG: a randomized trial to compare the minimally invasive direct vision and traditional approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:2038-2043.
22.
Lutz CW, Hillmann R., Lutter G., Schoellhorn J., Beyersdorf F.Endoscopic vs. conventional vein harvesting: first results with a new, non-disposable system. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;49:321-327
23.
Patel AN, Hebeler RF, Hamman BL, et al. Prospective analysis of endoscopic vein harvesting. Am J Surg. 2001; 182:716-719.
24.
Bitondo JM, Daggett WM, Torchiana DF, et al. Endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest: a comparison of postoperative wound complications. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:523-528.
25.
Bonde P., Graham A., MacGowan S.Endoscopic vein harvest: early results of a prospective trial with open vein harvest. Heart Surg Forum. 2002;5(suppl 4): S378-S391.
26.
Black EA, Campbell RK, Channon KM, Ratnatunga C., Pillai R.Minimally invasive vein harvesting significantly reduces pain and wound morbidity . Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;22:381-386.
27.
Felisky CD, Paull DL, Hill ME, et al. Endoscopic greater saphenous vein harvesting reduces the morbidity of coronary artery bypass surgery. Am J Surg. 2002; 183:576-579.
28.
Kiaii B., Mood BC, Massel D., et al. A prospective randomized trial of endoscopic versus conventional harvesting of the saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123:204-212.
Bonde P., Graham AN, MacGowan SWEndoscopic vein harvest: advantages and limitations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:2076-2082.
31.
Basbug HS, Tasatargil A., Aksoy NH, et al. Minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting using a laryngoscope: procedural, functional, and morphologic evaluation. Heart Surg Forum. 2005;8:E425-E430.
32.
Nasso G., Anselmi A., Modugno P., Alessandrini F.Minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting guided by preoperative echotomography: results of a prospective randomized study. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2005;4:464-468.
33.
O-Yurvati AH, Martin AK, Peska D.Minimally invasive saphenous vein harvest with the SaphLITE System. Int Surg. 2005;90:23-26.
34.
Wang S., Tan H., Wilkinson V., et al. Saphenous vein harvest with SaphLITE System versus conventional technique: a prospective, randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg . 2005;79:2018-2023.
35.
Yun K., Wu Y., Aharonian V., et al. Randomized trial of endoscopic versus open vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: six-month patency rates. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129:496-503.
36.
Lai T., Babb Y., Ning Q., et al. The transition from open to endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting and its clinical impact: the Texas Heart Institute experience. Tex Heart Inst J. 2006;33:316-320.
37.
Mahmood Z., Al Benna S., Nkere U., Murday A.Decreased morbidity following long saphenous vein harvesting using a minimally invasive technique: a randomized controlled trial comparing two techniques for long saphenous vein harvest. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;1:15.
38.
Vaidyanathan KR, Sankar MN, Cherian KMEndoscopic vs conventional vein harvesting: a prospective analysis. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2008;16:134-138.
