Endoscopic-Assisted Radial Forearm Free Flap Harvest: A Novel Technique to Reduce Donor Site Morbidity.

BACKGROUND: The radial forearm free flap (RFFF) remains a workhorse flap but can have significant donor site morbidity. The authors developed a novel technique for endoscopic-assisted RFFF (ERFFF) harvest and hypothesized improved donor site morbidity. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted evaluating patients who underwent ERFFF or RFFF by a single surgeon for head and neck reconstruction between November 2011 and July 2016; outcomes and complications were compared. A telephone survey was conducted to assess patient satisfaction with donor site appearance and function. RESULTS: Twenty-seven ERFFF and 13 RFFF harvests were performed. The cephalic vein was less commonly incorporated in ERFFF patients compared with RFFF patients (3.70 and 38.46%, respectively, p = 0.0095). ERFFF patients had lower rates of wound healing complications (0% vs. 15.38%, p = 0.10) and perfusion-related complications than RFFF patients (3.70% vs. 23.08%, p = 0.092). Fewer ERFFF patients reported a desire for a more normal appearance (42.86% vs. 71.43%, p = 0.361). The ERFFF group had a higher functional score (64.29% vs. 44.44%, p = 0.101), reporting lower rates of associated discomfort (35.71% vs. 85.71%, p = 0.063). None of the differences in rates of complications or patient-reported outcomes between the groups reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION: ERFFF is safe and effective alternative to RFFF, with similar operative time, similar pedicle safety, and elimination of the lengthy forearm incision. Unnecessary cephalic vein dissection can be avoided with endoscopic visualization of the venae comitantes. Further research with a larger sample size and better standardization is needed to assess effects on donor-site morbidity.

Endoscopic Conduit Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: An ISMICS Systematic Review and Consensus Conference Statements.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this consensus conference was to develop and update evidence-informed consensus statements and recommendations on harvesting saphenous vein and radial artery via an open as compared with endoscopic technique by systematically reviewing and performing a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. METHODS: All randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials included in the first the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery Consensus Conference and Statements, in 2005 up to November 30, 2015, were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Based on the resultant, 76 studies (23 randomized controlled trials and 53 nonrandomized controlled trials) on 281,459 patients analyzed, consensus statements, and recommendations were generated comparing the risks and benefits of endoscopic versus open conduit harvesting for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. RESULTS: Compared with open vein harvest, it is reasonable to perform endoscopic vein harvest of saphenous vein to reduce wound-related complications, postoperative length of stay, and outpatient wound management resources and to increase patient satisfaction (class I, level A). Based on the quality of the conduit and major adverse cardiac events as well as 6-month angiographic patency, endoscopic vein harvest was noninferior to open harvest. It is reasonable to perform endoscopic radial artery harvest to reduce wound-related complication and to increase patient satisfaction (class I, level B-R and B-NR, respectively) with reduction in major adverse cardiac events and noninferior patency rate at 1 and 3 to 5 years (class III, level B-R). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the consensus statements, the consensus panel recommends (class I, level B) that endoscopic saphenous vein and radial artery harvesting should be the standard of care for patients who require these conduits for coronary revascularization.