Division of Vascular Surgery, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Ore.
Division of Vascular Surgery, Knight Cardiovascular Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Ore.
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Nov;70(5):1534-1542. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.02.043. Epub 2019 May 29.
Prior studies have suggested improved wound complication rates but decreased primary patency in lower extremity bypasses performed with endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) vs open vein harvest (OVH). We hypothesize that the inferior patency reflects the initial learning curve for EVH and that improved patency can be achieved with experience.
This was a single-institution review of 113 patients with critical limb ischemia who underwent infrainguinal bypass with a continuous segment of great saphenous vein harvested endoscopically (n = 49) or through a single open incision (n = 64) from 2012 to 2017. EVH was performed by surgeons with >5 years' experience with this technique. Operative outcomes, patency, complications, and readmission rates were compared between the harvest methods. EVH data were also compared with our prior reported series of our initial experience with this technique to determine the effects of experience on outcomes.
There were no significant differences in patient demographics, medications, operative indications, or inflow/outflow vessels between the two groups. Mean operative time was 322 minutes and median hospital length of stay was 6 days for OVH, and was 340 minutes and 5 days for EVH, which was not significant. Harvest-related wound complications were more frequent with OVH (28% vs 2%, P < .001). Primary patency at 1 and 3 years was 65% and 58% for OVH, and 79% and 71% for EVH, respectively (P = .18), assisted primary patency was 77% and 74% for OVH and 94% and 89% for EVH, respectively (P = .05), and secondary patency was 82% and 79% for OVH and 95% and 95% for EVH, respectively (P = .03). The 30-day readmission rates were similar between OVH (20%) and EVH (12%, P = .26), but 90-day readmissions were more frequent in the OVH group (34% vs 14%, P = .018). Compared with our earlier series of EVH, the current cohort had significantly improved 3-year primary (71% vs 42%, P = .012), primary assisted patency (89 vs 66%, P = .034), and secondary patency (95% vs 66%, P = .003).
With experience, lower extremity bypass using EVH can result in improved patency compared with OVH and initial EVH use, while also resulting in fewer wound complications and readmissions, with comparable operative times and hospital length of stay. This technique should be more widely adopted by vascular surgeons as a primary method of vein harvest.
先前的研究表明,与开放式血管采集(OVH)相比,使用内镜下静脉采集(EVH)进行下肢旁路手术可降低伤口并发症发生率,但会降低主要通畅率。我们假设较低的通畅率反映了 EVH 的初始学习曲线,并且随着经验的积累,通畅率可以得到提高。
这是一项单中心回顾性研究,纳入了 2012 年至 2017 年间 113 例因严重肢体缺血而行下肢旁路手术的患者,其中连续段大隐静脉经内镜(n=49)或单一开放切口(n=64)采集。EVH 由具有>5 年该技术经验的外科医生进行。比较两种采集方法的手术结果、通畅率、并发症和再入院率。还比较了 EVH 数据与我们之前报道的该技术初始经验系列,以确定经验对结果的影响。
两组患者的人口统计学、药物、手术指征和流入/流出血管均无显著差异。OVH 的平均手术时间为 322 分钟,中位住院时间为 6 天,EVH 的平均手术时间为 340 分钟,中位住院时间为 5 天,差异无统计学意义。OVH 的与采集相关的伤口并发症发生率更高(28% vs 2%,P<.001)。OVH 的 1 年和 3 年原发性通畅率分别为 65%和 58%,EVH 的分别为 79%和 71%(P=.18),辅助原发性通畅率分别为 77%和 74%,EVH 的分别为 94%和 89%(P=.05),继发性通畅率分别为 82%和 79%,EVH 的分别为 95%和 95%(P=.03)。OVH 的 30 天再入院率为 20%,EVH 的为 12%(P=.26),两组相似,但 OVH 组的 90 天再入院率较高(34% vs 14%,P=.018)。与我们早期的 EVH 系列相比,当前队列的 3 年原发性(71% vs 42%,P=.012)、原发性辅助通畅率(89% vs 66%,P=.034)和继发性通畅率(95% vs 66%,P=.003)均有显著改善。
随着经验的积累,与 OVH 和初始 EVH 相比,使用 EVH 进行下肢旁路手术可提高通畅率,同时减少伤口并发症和再入院率,手术时间和住院时间相当。该技术应被血管外科医生更广泛地采用为静脉采集的主要方法。