IM: We sought to compare the impact of endoscopic and minimally invasive great saphenous vein harvesting on leg-related patient morbidity after coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: From February 2004 to July 2006, 120 patients underwent minimally invasive vein harvesting, and 180 patients underwent endoscopic vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients were evaluated prospectively for wound-healing disturbances, residual leg edema, pain intensity and saphenous neuropathy at seven days, three months and one year after surgery. RESULTS: Both harvesting techniques were associated with a low incidence of wound-healing disturbances; nevertheless, endoscopic vein harvesting was associated with a significantly lower incidence of residual edema (12% vs 28%, P<0.05 seven days postoperative; 6% vs 19%, P<0.001 three months postoperative), pain (9% vs 20%, P<0.05; 6% vs 10%, P<0.05) and saphenous neuropathy (6% vs 23%, P<0.001; 3% vs 14%, P<0.05) during follow-ups. Endoscopic vein harvesting was also associated with a significantly lower incidence of neurological disturbances at one-year follow-up (2% vs 8%, P<0.05). Mean harvesting time (43.9+/-10.2 vs 40.6+/-15.5 min, P=0.09), conversion rate (2% vs 3%, P=0.71) and injury per conduit (0.3+/-0.1 vs 0.3+/-0.2, P=0.91) were comparable for both groups. CONCLUSION: EVH is superior to MIVH in terms of reduction in pain intensity, residual leg edema and saphenous neuropathy at seven days and again at three months postoperative. A significantly lower incidence of neurological disturbances is still presented one year after surgery.

Department of Cardiac Surgery University Hospital and Palacky University Faculty of Medicine Olomouc Czech Republic