Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy

Randomized Prospective Study Comparing Conventional Subcuticular Skin Closure With Dermabond Skin Glue After Saphenous Vein Harvesting

BACKGROUND Dermabond (Ethicon UK, Edinburgh, United Kingdom) is a topical skin adhesive used for surgical wound closure, with purported advantages over conventional sutures on cosmetic outcomes, cost benefits, and operative times. This study compared results of skin closure using Dermabond and subcuticular sutures after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS The study prospectively enrolled and randomized 106 patients who underwent CABG. The groups received closure with Dermabond skin glue or subcuticular sutures (n = 53 each) after saphenous vein harvesting using the bridging technique. Wound closure time for the two methods was recorded. Cosmetic appearance was assessed using the Hollander, the Vancouver, and the visual analog scale. Patient satisfaction was recorded before discharge and at week 6. RESULTS There were no significant differences in the total operative time between the two groups (p = 0.43). Closure time was significantly shorter in the Dermabond group (p = 0.017). Patients in the Dermabond group also reported superior cosmetic outcome at weeks 1 (p < 0.001) and 6 (p = 0.001) and improved patient satisfaction (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Dermabond has demonstrated superiority over traditional subcuticular skin sutures in terms of closure time, cosmetic appearance, and patient satisfaction. This technique provides a novel method of wound closure after CABG.

A randomized study comparing three groups of vein harvesting methods for coronary artery bypass grafting: endoscopic harvest versus standard bridging and open techniques

OBJECTIVES The use of an open vein harvesting (OVH) technique for saphenous vein harvesting (SVH) is associated with wound complications and delayed patient mobilization. This has led to the development of minimally invasive vein harvesting (MIVH) techniques, such as standard bridging and endoscopic SVH (EVH). This randomized trial was established to assess immediate clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in our centre. METHODS A total of 150 consecutive patients were prospectively randomized into three groups. Group 1 consisted of 50 patients who underwent OVH, Group 2 consisted of 50 patients who underwent a standard bridging technique (SBT) and Group 3 consisted of 50 patients who underwent EVH. Each group was assessed for the incidence of wound infection, postoperative pain and satisfaction and the number of vein repairs using previously validated scoring systems. RESULTS The MIVH techniques reduced the pain at hospital (P < 0.001) and at 6 weeks (P < 0.001), and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), compared with the OVH group. Patient satisfaction was greatest in the EVH group followed by the SBT and then the OVH group. The clinical markers of inflammation were reduced with an MIVHt. There were more vein repairs in the EVH compared with the OVH (P < 0.001) and the SBT (P = 0.04) groups. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that MIVH reduces wound morbidity. We believe that each technique has advantages and disadvantages, which should be considered during the selection of a harvesting procedure by both the patient and the surgeon.

Histological and immunohistochemical evaluation of human saphenous vein harvested by endoscopic and open conventional methods

OBJECTIVES The introduction of endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting (ESVH) has been reported to decrease saphenectomy-associated wound pain and infection, compared with the traditional open conventional saphenous vein harvesting (OCSVH) technique. Despite all these benefits, the rate of adoption among surgeons has been variable. Criticism of this technique centres on the risk of injury at the time of vein harvest with its potential detrimental effect on structural viability and long-term patency. The aim of our study is to investigate the endothelial preservation of saphenous vein grafts harvested by various extraction methods. METHODS A prospective, observational study of 30 human saphenous vein grafts was performed to evaluate endothelial preservation by haematoxylin-eosin and CD 31 staining methods. The saphenous vein was harvested endoscopically either by an open tunnel (OT-ESVH), closed tunnel (CT-ESVH) or an OCSVH harvesting technique. Research samples were collected without distension to avoid intraluminal dilatation and endothelial disruption. Both haematoxylin-eosin and immunohistochemistry slides were imaged by a high-resolution slide-scanning system. RESULTS Haematoxylin-eosin staining of the CT-ESVH group showed mostly preserved endothelium (P = 0.398) with some endothelial stretching (P = 1.0) and no endothelial detachment (P = 0.197). The OT-ESVH group showed marked endothelial stretching (P = 0.053). However, the OCSVH group showed significantly more endothelial detachment than the endoscopic groups (P = 0.01). The mean grading score of immunohistochemistry using the CD 31 antibody was much lower in the OT-ESVH group (1.6 ± 0.84, P = 0.009), showing more poorly preserved endothelial cells than the CT-ESVH and OCSVH groups. CONCLUSIONS We observed more endothelial stretching in the OT-ESVH group, which in our opinion, was due to lack of subcutaneous tissue separation, poor visualization and traction stresses across the wall of the saphenous vein. However, the OCSVH method revealed poor endothelial protection with areas of endothelial detachment, not observed with both endoscopic techniques. Interestingly, most preserved endothelium was found in the CT-ESVH group, which was previously known to be associated with worse graft patency.

A comparative analysis of saphenous vein conduit harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass grafting – standard bridging versus the open technique

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery involves harvesting the great saphenous vein (GSV) using the traditional open technique (TOT). This can be associated with significant leg morbidity and patient dissatisfaction. Alternatively, the standard bridging technique (SBT) is a minimally invasive procedure of vein retrieval that uses smaller frequent incisions along the length of the leg and may reduce postoperative complications. This study was designed to compare the success of SBT in reducing leg morbidity and increasing patient satisfaction. One hundred patients were recruited into the study and computer randomised into two groups of 50 undergoing SBT or TOT. Leg morbidity and patient satisfaction were analysed by assessment of pain scores, wound development and scar formation. Closure and harvesting time were also compared between the two groups. SBT was associated with better wound development (P<0.001) and a significantly higher patient satisfaction (P<0.001). Leg pain was significantly reduced amongst SBT group at rest and with movement (P<0.001). There was also a reduction in saphenous neuropathy with the use of SBT (P<0.001). No difference in closure or harvesting time was demonstrated (P=0.26 and P=0.23, respectively). This study demonstrates that harvesting the GSV by the minimally invasive SBT reduces postoperative leg morbidity and increases patient satisfaction without the need of costly equipment. SBT represents a safe, effective and financially viable technique for vein harvesting.

A randomized study comparing traditional monofilament knotted sutures with barbed knotless sutures for donor leg wound closure in coronary artery bypass surgery

OBJECTIVES Surgical knots on the suture line provide an anchoring function, but also represent a potential source of infection and irritation on the donor leg after coronary artery bypass surgery. Knotless barbed sutures were designed to prevent knot-related complications. This study compared knot-related wound complication rates between patients receiving traditional monofilament sutures and those receiving barbed knotless sutures for closure of the donor leg. METHODS One hundred and forty-two patients were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n = 70) received traditional monofilament sutures and Group 2 (n = 72) received barbed knotless sutures. All wounds were assessed on postoperative days 3 and 5 and weeks 2, 4 and 6 using a validated wound scoring system. Antibiotics usage and general practitioner and district nurse visits were recorded. RESULTS No demographic differences were observed between groups. Leg wound skin closure times were significantly shorter in Group 2 compared with Group 1 (P < 0.001). Group 1 demonstrated a greater incidence of excessive scarring (P < 0.001), itching (P < 0.001), irritation (P < 0.001) and adverse skin tissue reactions (P < 0.001) than Group 2. Fewer general practitioner visits were recorded in Group 1 compared with Group 2 (P = 0.051). CONCLUSION Knotless barbed suture usage significantly reduces the incidence of knot-related leg wound complications compared with traditional monofilament knotted sutures. This may be related to differences in the rate of absorption of the suture material or an associated decrease in the incidence of adverse skin tissue reactions that may delay postoperative wound healing.

Does the introduction of a comprehensive structured training programme for endoscopic vein harvesting improve conduit quality? A multicentre pilot study

OBJECTIVES Endoscopic vein harvesting is one of the most popular minimally invasive vein-harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. It is associated with improved cosmetic outcome and fewer wound-related problems compared with the conventional open technique. However, its efficacy with regard to conduit damage and long-term patency has recently been questioned. Learning curve-associated trauma to the vein has a major impact on vein quality and the incidence of graft failure post-surgery. In an attempt to address this problem, we have devised and tested a learning tool termed Manchester Endoscopic Learning Tool (MELT). In this study, we compare vein quality following MELT training with standard recommended training. METHODS Fourteen practitioners across seven UK centres were enrolled into the study. Practitioners were categorized into two groups receiving MELT or standard training. Data were collected prospectively from the first eight vein retrievals per operator following training. A total of n = 112 vein-harvesting procedures were included in the study. RESULTS Veins harvested by MELT practitioners had fewer small avulsions (P <0.001), required fewer repairs (P <0.001) and experienced a lower incidence of bruising (P <0.001) than veins obtained by practitioners receiving standard training. The incidence of very short side branches requiring repair was also significantly reduced (P <0.001) in the MELT group compared with standard training. CONCLUSIONS Our formalized training programme consistently minimizes vein trauma resulting in better-quality conduits when compared with the current standard training. Exposure of surgical practitioners to the structured curriculum during their endoscopic vein harvesting training will enhance their learning and lead to better-quality conduits. This is likely to impart clinical benefit post-surgery.

Closed suction drainage improves clinical outcome in patients undergoing endoscopic vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND Endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) is a widely accepted technique for coronary artery bypass grafting, with well-reported benefits. However, EVH is associated with severe hematoma formation at incision sites, resulting in postoperative pain. We hypothesized that the use of a leg wound drain at the incision site may reduce these comorbidities. METHODS One hundred consecutive patients were prospectively randomly allocated into two groups of 50: group 1 with leg wound drains, and group 2 without drains. Group 1 patients underwent EVH followed by closure with a size 10 high vacuum leg wound drain (20 kPa), whereas group 2 underwent EVH followed by closure without a leg wound drain. Patients were assessed for postoperative pain, wound infection, and satisfaction using validated scoring systems immediately after surgery. RESULTS Pain at rest (p < 0.001) and with movement (p < 0.001), incidence of hematoma (p < 0.001), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) were significantly improved in the drain group at days 1 to 7 and remained significant at week 6 after surgery. Interestingly, the use of antibiotics (6% versus 24%, p = 0.012) and the number of general practitioner visits (6% versus 26%, p = 0.012) were lower in the drain group compared with the no-drain group. However, there were no differences in the length of hospital stay between the two groups after surgery. CONCLUSIONS Our findings indicate that the use of a high vacuum leg drain after EVH for long saphenous vein is of clear therapeutic benefit in the early postoperative period. We also report that this technique may reduce antibiotic administration and general practitioner visits after patient discharge.

A comprehensive review on learning curve associated problems in endoscopic vein harvesting and the requirement for a standardised training programme

Endoscopic vein harvesting is becoming one of the most favourable vein harvesting techniques in multiple bypass coronary surgery, due to its short term post-operative benefits with high patient satisfaction. However, long-term graft patency has been both supported and questioned in the literature. Graft failure can be affected by harvesting methods and operator’s experience. Endoscopic vein harvesting is associated with a learning curve period, during which the incidence of vein trauma is high due to unfamiliarity with the surgical technique. There is a paucity of structured learning tools for novice practitioners, meaning that training differs significantly between hospital centres. Inconsistent training methods can lead to poor surgical technique, which can have a significant impact on vein quality and stress level of the practitioner. In turn, this can lead to increased postoperative complications and longer surgical duration. The main aim of this literature review is to understand the impact of the learning curve on the vein conduit and whether there is a requirement for a standardised training programme for the novice practitioners.

Study Comparing Vein Integrity and Clinical Outcomes in Open Vein Harvesting and 2 Types of Endoscopic Vein Harvesting for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: The VICO Randomized Clinical Trial (Vein Integrity and Clinical Outcomes)

Background: Current consensus statements maintain that endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) should be standard care in coronary artery bypass graft surgery, but vein quality and clinical outcomes have been questioned. The VICO trial (Vein Integrity and Clinical Outcomes) was designed to assess the impact of different vein harvesting methods on vessel damage and whether this contributes to clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods: In this single-center, randomized clinical trial, patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with an internal mammary artery and with 1 to 4 vein grafts were recruited. All veins were harvested by a single experienced practitioner. We randomly allocated 300 patients into closed tunnel CO2 EVH (n=100), open tunnel CO2 EVH (n=100), and traditional open vein harvesting (n=100) groups. The primary end point was endothelial integrity and muscular damage of the harvested vein. Secondary end points included clinical outcomes (major adverse cardiac events), use of healthcare resources, and impact on health status (quality-adjusted life-years). Results: The open vein harvesting group demonstrated marginally better endothelial integrity in random samples (85% versus 88% versus 93% for closed tunnel EVH, open tunnel EVH, and open vein harvesting; P<0.001). Closed tunnel EVH displayed the lowest longitudinal hypertrophy (1% versus 13.5% versus 3%; P=0.001). However, no differences in endothelial stretching were observed between groups (37% versus 37% versus 31%; P=0.62). Secondary clinical outcomes demonstrated no significant differences in composite major adverse cardiac event scores at each time point up to 48 months. The quality-adjusted life-year gain per patient was 0.11 (P<0.001) for closed tunnel EVH and 0.07 (P=0.003) for open tunnel EVH compared with open vein harvesting. The likelihood of being cost-effective, at a predefined threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, was 75% for closed tunnel EVH, 19% for open tunnel EVH, and 6% for open vein harvesting. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that harvesting techniques affect the integrity of different vein layers, albeit only slightly. Secondary outcomes suggest that histological findings do not directly contribute to major adverse cardiac event outcomes. Gains in health status were observed, and cost-effectiveness was better with closed tunnel EVH. High-level experience with endoscopic harvesting performed by a dedicated specialist practitioner gives optimal results comparable to those of open vein harvesting. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry Number: 91485426.

A study comparing Vein Integrity and Clinical Outcomes (VICO) in open vein harvesting and two types of endoscopic vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: The VICO Randomised Clinical trial.

Background: Current consensus statements maintain that endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) should be standard care in coronary artery bypass graft surgery, but vein quality and clinical outcomes have been questioned. The VICO trial (Vein Integrity and Clinical Outcomes) was designed to assess the impact of different vein harvesting methods on vessel damage and whether this contributes to clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods: In this single-center, randomized clinical trial, patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with an internal mammary artery and with 1 to 4 vein grafts were recruited. All veins were harvested by a single experienced practitioner. We randomly allocated 300 patients into closed tunnel CO2 EVH (n=100), open tunnel CO2 EVH (n=100), and traditional open vein harvesting (n=100) groups. The primary end point was endothelial integrity and muscular damage of the harvested vein. Secondary end points included clinical outcomes (major adverse cardiac events), use of healthcare resources, and impact on health status (quality-adjusted life-years). Results: The open vein harvesting group demonstrated marginally better endothelial integrity in random samples (85% versus 88% versus 93% for closed tunnel EVH, open tunnel EVH, and open vein harvesting; P<0.001). Closed tunnel EVH displayed the lowest longitudinal hypertrophy (1% versus 13.5% versus 3%; P=0.001). However, no differences in endothelial stretching were observed between groups (37% versus 37% versus 31%; P=0.62). Secondary clinical outcomes demonstrated no significant differences in composite major adverse cardiac event scores at each time point up to 48 months. The quality-adjusted life-year gain per patient was 0.11 (P<0.001) for closed tunnel EVH and 0.07 (P=0.003) for open tunnel EVH compared with open vein harvesting. The likelihood of being cost-effective, at a predefined threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, was 75% for closed tunnel EVH, 19% for open tunnel EVH, and 6% for open vein harvesting. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that harvesting techniques affect the integrity of different vein layers, albeit only slightly. Secondary outcomes suggest that histological findings do not directly contribute to major adverse cardiac event outcomes. Gains in health status were observed, and cost-effectiveness was better with closed tunnel EVH. High-level experience with endoscopic harvesting performed by a dedicated specialist practitioner gives optimal results comparable to those of open vein harvesting. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry Number: 91485426.