Khan Sikandar Z, Rivero Mariel, McCraith Brian, Harris Linda M, Dryjski Maciej L, Dosluoglu Hasan H
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY; VA Western New York Healthcare System, Buffalo, NY.
J Vasc Surg. 2016 Jun;63(6):1546-54. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.01.032. Epub 2016 Mar 19.
Although endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) has been reported to reduce the morbidity and length of stay compared with open vein harvest (OVH) for infrainguinal bypass procedures, there have been concerns about decreased graft patency and increased rates of reinterventions with EVH compared with OVH. We started using EVH in 2008, and currently it is our preferred approach. The goal of this study was to see if EVH is comparable to OVH in terms of graft patency and limb salvage and associated with fewer wound complications.
The study included 153 patients undergoing 171 elective lower extremity bypass procedures with single-piece autologous great saphenous vein from June 1, 2001, to December 31, 2014. Patients were observed postoperatively clinically and with duplex ultrasound evaluation. Patency, limb salvage rates, and postoperative complications were compared between OVH and EVH.
There were 78 patients who had 88 EVH conduits and 75 patients who had 83 OVH conduits; 78.2% of the EVH group and 80% of the OVH group had critical limb ischemia (P = .237). Comorbidities were similar, but the EVH group had a significantly higher number of patients receiving antiplatelet drugs, enteric-coated acetylsalicylic acid (94.9% vs 70.7%; P < .001), and clopidogrel (62.8% vs 44%; P = .02), whereas the OVH group had more patients receiving warfarin anticoagulation (33.3% vs 20.5%; P = .073). Mean vein diameter was not signifciantly different (EVH, 3.2 ± 0.7 mm; OVH, 3.2 ± 0.8 mm; P = .598). Wound complication rates were significantly higher in the OVH group (EVH, 13.6%; OVH, 43.4%; P < .001), with 4.5% of patients in the EVH group and 18.1% of patients in the OVH group requiring débridement for wound complications (P = .005). Mean length of stay was shorter in the EVH group (EVH, 7.5 ± 6.4 days; OVH, 9.6 ± 11.0 days; P = .126). Early and late patency rates (EVH vs OVH 12- and 60-month primary patency, 73% ± 5% and 64% ± 6% vs 72% ± 5% and 56% ± 7 [P = .785]; assisted primary patency, 81% ± 5% and 77% ± 5% vs 81% ± 5% and 70% ± 6% [P = .731]; secondary patency, 87% ± 4% and 85% ± 4% vs 82% ± 4% and 73% ± 6% [P = .193]) and limb salvage rates (critical limb ischemia only, 12 and 60 months, 94% ± 3% and 81% ± 7% vs 83% ± 5% and 81% ± 5% [P = .400]) were similar between the groups.
In experienced hands, EVH is associated with a significant decrease in wound complications with similar graft patency, reintervention rates, and limb salvage.
尽管已有报道称,在腹股沟下旁路手术中,与开放式静脉采集(OVH)相比,内镜下静脉采集(EVH)可降低发病率并缩短住院时间,但人们担心与OVH相比,EVH会导致移植物通畅率降低和再次干预率增加。我们于2008年开始使用EVH,目前它是我们的首选方法。本研究的目的是观察EVH在移植物通畅率、肢体挽救方面是否与OVH相当,以及是否伴有更少的伤口并发症。
本研究纳入了2001年6月1日至2014年12月31日期间接受171例择期下肢旁路手术的153例患者,这些手术均采用单段自体大隐静脉。术后对患者进行临床观察和双功超声评估。比较了OVH和EVH之间的通畅率、肢体挽救率和术后并发症。
78例患者有88条EVH血管,75例患者有83条OVH血管;EVH组78.2%的患者和OVH组80%的患者患有严重肢体缺血(P = 0.237)。合并症相似,但EVH组接受抗血小板药物、肠溶阿司匹林的患者数量显著更多(94.9%对70.7%;P < 0.001),接受氯吡格雷的患者数量也更多(62.8%对44%;P = 0.02),而OVH组接受华法林抗凝的患者更多(33.3%对20.5%;P = 0.073)。平均静脉直径无显著差异(EVH,3.2 ± 0.7 mm;OVH,3.2 ± 0.8 mm;P = 0.598)。OVH组的伤口并发症发生率显著更高(EVH,13.6%;OVH,43.4%;P < 0.001),EVH组4.5%的患者和OVH组18.1%的患者因伤口并发症需要清创(P = 0.005)。EVH组的平均住院时间更短(EVH,7.5 ± 6.4天;OVH,9.6 ± 11.0天;P = 0.126)。两组之间的早期和晚期通畅率(EVH与OVH的12个月和60个月主要通畅率,73% ± 5%和64% ± 6%对72% ± 5%和56% ± 7 [P = 0.785];辅助主要通畅率,81% ± 5%和77% ± 5%对81% ± 5%和70% ± 6% [P = 0.731];二次通畅率,87% ± 4%和85% ± 4%对82% ± 4%和73% ± 6% [P = 0.193])以及肢体挽救率(仅严重肢体缺血,12个月和60个月,94% ± 3%和81% ± 7%对83% ± 5%和81% ± 5% [P = 0.400])相似。
在经验丰富的医生手中,EVH可显著减少伤口并发症,同时移植物通畅率、再次干预率和肢体挽救情况相似。