Open versus endoscopic great saphenous vein harvest for lower extremity revascularization of critical limb ischemia

被引:26
|
作者
Santo, Vincent J. [1 ]
Dargon, Phong T. [1 ]
Azarbal, Amir F. [2 ]
Liem, Timothy K. [2 ]
Mitchell, Erica L. [2 ]
Moneta, Gregory L. [2 ]
Landry, Gregory J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Surg, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[2] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Div Vasc Surg, Portland, OR 97239 USA
关键词
INFRAINGUINAL BYPASS; FEMOROPOPLITEAL BYPASS; SECONDARY PROCEDURES; GRAFT; CONDUITS; OUTCOMES; PATENCY; SURGERY; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jvs.2013.08.007
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: This study determined wound complication rates, intervention rates, failure mechanisms, patency, limb salvage, and overall survival after lower extremity revascularization using open vein harvest (OVH) vs endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) for critical limb ischemia. Methods: A single-institution review was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent infrainguinal bypass with a single-segment reversed great saphenous vein between 2005 and 2012. Results: A total of 251 patients with critical limb ischemia underwent revascularization, comprising 153 with OVH and 98 with EVH. The OVH group had a lower mean body mass index (26.7 vs 29.9 kg/m(2); P=.001). There were no other differences in demographics, comorbidities, medications, smoking, or in the proximal or distal anastomotic site. Median operative times were 249 minutes (OVH) vs 316 minutes (EVH; P<.001). Median postoperative hospital length of stay was 7 days (OVH) vs 5 days (EVH; P<.001). Median follow-up was 295 days (OVH) vs 313 days (EVH; P=.416). During follow-up, 21 OVH grafts (14%) and 27 EVH grafts (28%) underwent an intervention (P=.048). There were a similar number of surgical interventions: 50% (OVH) vs 61% (EVH; P=.449). Failed grafts had a mean of 1.2 stenoses per graft, regardless of harvest method. Median stenosis length was 2.1 cm (OVH) vs 2.5 cm (EVH; P=.402). At 1 and 3 years, the primary patency was 71% and 52% (OVH) vs 58% and 41% (EVH; P=.010), and secondary patency was 88% and 71% (OVH) vs 88% and 64% (EVH; P=.266). A secondary patency Cox proportional hazard model showed EVH had a hazard ratio of 2.93 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-8.33; P=.044). Overall and harvest-related wound complications were 44% and 29% (OVH) vs 37% and 12% (EVH; P=.226 and P=.002). At 5 years, amputation-free survival was 48% (OVH) vs 54% (EVH; P=.305), and limb salvage was 89% (OVH) and 91% (EVH; P=.615). Conclusions: OVH and EVH have similar failure mechanisms, limb salvage, amputation-free survival, and overall survival. EVH is associated with impaired patency, increased need for intervention, longer operative times, shorter hospital stays, and decreased vein harvest site wound complications. OVH of the great saphenous vein may provide optimal patency but was not necessarily associated with better patient-centered outcomes. Similar limb salvage rates and amputation-free survival may justify the use of EVH, despite inferior patency, to capture shorter hospital stays and decreased wound complications.
引用
收藏
页码:427 / 434
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest for femoral to below the knee arterial bypass using saphenous vein graft
    Gazoni, Leo M.
    Carty, Rebecca
    Skinner, John
    Cherry, Kenneth J.
    Harthun, Nancy L.
    Kron, Irving L.
    Tribble, Curtis G.
    Kern, John A.
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2006, 44 (02) : 282 - 288
  • [22] Novel Technique for Lower Extremity Reverse Saphenous Vein Bypass-Use of Fistula Formation During Great Saphenous Vein Harvest
    Segal, Michael S.
    Emmanuel, Bishoy
    Gilani, Mohammad
    Badhey, Mohan
    Sivakumar, Mahalingham
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2019, 69 (06) : E160 - E161
  • [23] Hybrid Revascularization of the Lower Limb for Critical Limb Ischemia
    Barron, Fausto Julian Virgen
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2023, 77 (04) : 41S - 41S
  • [24] A randomized trial of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest in coronary bypass surgery
    Puskas, JD
    Wright, CE
    Miller, PK
    Anderson, TE
    Gott, JP
    Brown, WM
    Guyton, RA
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 1999, 68 (04): : 1509 - 1512
  • [25] Statistical Methodology for Analysis of Endoscopic Versus Open Saphenous Vein Harvest Techniques Reply
    Ouzounian, Maral
    Buth, Karen J.
    Ali, Imtiaz S.
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2010, 90 (05): : 1744 - 1744
  • [26] The comparison of endoscopic and open saphenous vein harvesting techniques in terms of the complications to the lower limb
    W Piotrowicz
    M Kempa
    P Kwinecki
    M Piorkowski
    R Cichon
    Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 8 (Suppl 1)
  • [27] Complete Lower Extremity Revascularization via a Hybrid Procedure for Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia
    Takayama, Toshio
    Matsumura, Jon S.
    VASCULAR AND ENDOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2018, 52 (04) : 255 - 261
  • [28] Outcomes for critical limb ischemia are driven by lower extremity revascularization volume, not distance to hospital
    Medhekar, Ankit N.
    Mix, Doran S.
    Aquina, Christopher T.
    Trakimas, Lauren E.
    Noyes, Katia
    Fleming, Fergal J.
    Glocker, Roan J.
    Stoner, Michael C.
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2017, 66 (02) : 476 - +
  • [29] Reoperative Lower Extremity Revascularization with Cadaver Vein for Limb Salvage
    Bannazadeh, Mohsen
    Sarac, Timur P.
    Bena, James
    Srivastava, Sunita
    Ouriel, Kenneth
    Clair, Daniel
    ANNALS OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2009, 23 (01) : 24 - 31
  • [30] Endoscopic versus open great saphenous vein harvesting for femoral to popliteal artery bypass
    Mirza, Aleem K.
    Stauffer, Kendall
    Fleming, Mark D.
    De Martino, Randall
    Oderich, Gustavo
    Kalra, Manju
    Gloviczki, Peter
    Bower, Thomas
    JOURNAL OF VASCULAR SURGERY, 2018, 67 (04) : 1199 - 1206