Julliard Walker, Katzen Jeremy, Nabozny Michael, Young Kate, Glass Carolyn, Singh Michael J, Illig Karl A
Department of Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, NY 14642, USA.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2011 Jan;25(1):101-7. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2010.10.013.
Endoscopic saphenous vein harvest (EVH) has been shown to lower wound infection rates and cost compared with conventional harvest, although long-term patency data are lacking. A small series of studies has recently suggested that patency is inferior to conventionally harvested vein technique, and we thus sought to explore this question by reviewing our cumulative experience with this technique.
The short- and long-term outcomes of all lower extremity bypasses (LEBPs) using saphenous vein at one institution over a period of 8.5 years were retrospectively reviewed.
A total of 363 patients averaging 67 ± 24 to 100 years of age had undergone LEBP and had charts available for review. Of these 363 patients, 170 underwent EVH (90% using a noninsufflation technique) and 193 conventional (by means of continuous or skip incisions); 48% of patients reported tissue loss and no differences in indication for surgery were noted between groups. Mean follow-up was 35.1 (range: <1-105) months. Primary patency rates were worse in the EVH group as compared with conventional at six (63.3% ± 4.0% vs. 77.3% ± 3.3%), 12 (50.4% ± 4.2% vs. 73.7% ± 3.6%), and 36 (42.2% ± 4.5% vs. 59.1% ± 4.9%) months (all p < 0.001), although these differences were largely limited to patients with limb-threat and diabetes. However, limb salvage and survival, were identical between groups. Contrary to previous experience, there were no differences in length of stay or wound complication rates.
The overall results of this study show an inferior long-term patency rate for endoscopically harvested saphenous vein after LEBP in our series as a whole, and do not confirm the short-term benefit previously shown in a selected cohort. These differences were, however, minimal or absent in patients with claudication or absence of diabetes, and EVH may continue to play a role in these cases.
与传统采集方法相比,内镜下大隐静脉采集(EVH)已被证明可降低伤口感染率和成本,尽管缺乏长期通畅数据。最近的一系列小型研究表明,其通畅性不如传统采集静脉技术,因此我们试图通过回顾我们在该技术方面的累积经验来探讨这个问题。
回顾性分析了某机构在8.5年期间所有使用大隐静脉进行的下肢旁路移植术(LEBP)的短期和长期结果。
共有363例平均年龄为67±24至100岁的患者接受了LEBP,且有病历可供查阅。在这363例患者中,170例接受了EVH(90%使用非充气技术),193例接受了传统采集(通过连续或间断切口);48%的患者报告有组织损失,两组间手术指征无差异。平均随访时间为35.1(范围:<1 - 105)个月。与传统采集组相比,EVH组在6个月(63.3%±4.0%对77.3%±3.3%)、12个月(50.4%±4.2%对73.7%±3.6%)和36个月(42.2%±4.5%对59.1%±4.9%)时的初级通畅率更差(所有p<0.001),尽管这些差异主要限于有肢体威胁和糖尿病的患者。然而,两组间的肢体挽救率和生存率相同。与以往经验相反,住院时间和伤口并发症发生率无差异。
本研究的总体结果表明,在我们的系列研究中,LEBP后内镜采集的大隐静脉长期通畅率较低,并未证实先前在特定队列中显示的短期益处。然而,在间歇性跛行或无糖尿病的患者中,这些差异很小或不存在,EVH可能在这些病例中继续发挥作用。