Up-to-Date, Skeletonized or Pedicle Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery; Does It Matter?

PURPOSE

In this article, we reported on the up-to-date literature regarding skeletonized bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) flow and the effect on sternal perfusion. We also reviewed the pros and cons of the skeletonization technique versus the conventional pedicle technique for harvesting the BIMA.

METHODS

We performed an up-to-date review using the PubMed database, with a specific focus on the contemporary published literature.

RESULTS

BIMA skeletonization can preserve the sternal microcirculation, minimize tissue damage, and maintain blood supply to the chest wall at the tissue level. This effect is also apparent in diabetics. Deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) rates are significantly less with skeletonization versus the conventional pedicle technique and are comparable to single internal mammary artery harvesting.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary large-scale studies demonstrate that skeletonization of the BIMA increases conduit length, provides superior flow, reduces the incidence of DSWIs, and improves late survival. Hopefully, this review will increase awareness of the compelling evidence in favor of using skeletonized internal mammary arteries and stimulate increased uptake of BIMA revascularization surgery.