Endoscopic greater saphenous vein harvesting reduces the morbidity of coronary artery bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND: Most coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operations still involve the use of greater saphenous vein (GSV) for one or more grafts, even with the increasing use of arterial conduits for coronary revascularization. Wound complications from GSV harvesting are common, and sometimes severe. In order to reduce the morbidity of this procedure, we adopted a technique of endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH). EVH allows nearly complete harvest of the GSV, with excellent visualization, through minimal incisions. At our institution, a physician's assistant routinely performs EVH, usually while a cardiothoracic surgeon harvests an arterial conduit. In 1997, all GSV harvesting was performed by open technique. During a transition period in 1998 and 1999 we used several different endoscopic techniques. By the beginning of 2000, our technique of EVH was standardized and used routinely. METHODS: To determine whether EVH reduced the morbidity associated with conventional open vein harvesting (OVH), we reviewed the charts of all patients having primary coronary artery bypass operations utilizing GSV during the years 1997 and 2000. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in risk factors for leg incision complications. The year 2000 EVH group had a marked reduction in the number of wound complications compared with the year 1997 OVH group (7.1% versus 26.1%, P < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between the two groups in total operative time (OVH 224 minutes, EVH 223 minutes, number of distal coronary anastomoses (OVH 3.38 +/- 0.90, EVH 3.38 +/- 0.94), or the rate of clinically apparent early graft failure. There was a significant increase in the use of sequential grafting techniques in the 2000 group (OVH 21.9%, EVH 43.6%, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: EVH reduced the morbidity associated with GSV harvesting. EVH was associated with an increased use of sequential coronary grafting techniques. EVH does not prolong operative time when performed by experienced personnel. We believe EVH should become the standard of care.

Evolving management strategies in esophageal perforation: surgeons using nonoperative techniques to improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Management of acute esophageal perforation continues to evolve. We hypothesized that treatment of these patients at a tertiary referral center is more important than beginning treatment within 24 hours, and that the evolving application of nonsurgical treatment techniques by surgeons would produce improved outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Demographics and outcomes of patients treated for esophageal perforation from 1989 to 2009 were recorded in an Institutional Review Board-approved database. Retrospective outcomes assessment was done for 5 separate time spans, including timing and type of treatment, length of stay (LOS), complications, and mortality. RESULTS: Eighty-one consecutive patients presented with acute esophageal perforation. Their mean age was 64 years, and 55 patients (68%) had American Society of Anesthesiologists levels 3 to 5; 59% of the study population was referred from other hospitals; 48 patients (59%) were managed operatively, 33 (41%) nonoperatively, and 10 patients with hybrid approaches involving a combination of surgical and interventional techniques; 57 patients (70%) were treated <24 hours and 24 (30%) received treatment >24 hours after perforation. LOS was lower in the early-treatment group; however, there was no difference in complications or mortality. Nonoperative therapy increased from 0% to 75% over time. Nonsurgical therapy was more common in referred cases (48% vs 30%) and in the >24 hours treatment group (46% vs 38%). Over the period of study, there were decreases in complications (50% to 33%) and LOS (18.5 to 8.5 days). Mortality for the entire series involved 3 patients (4%): 2 operative and 1 nonoperative. CONCLUSIONS: Results from our series indicate that referral to a tertiary care center is as important as treatment within 24 hours. An experienced surgical management team using a diversified approach, including selective application of nonoperative techniques, can expect to shorten LOS and limit complications and mortality.

Assessment of intra-operative haemodynamic changes associated with transhiatal and transthoracic oesophagectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Previous comparisons of the different surgical techniques for oesophagectomy have concentrated on mortality, morbidity and survival. There is limited data regarding the intra-operative physiological ramifications of the transhiatal (TH) versus the transthoracic (TT) approach to oesophageal resection. We carried out an in-depth analysis of the intra-operative haemodynamic changes and assessed the potential implications on perioperative outcomes in a matched cohort of patients undergoing TH and TT oesophagectomy. METHODS: A retrospective case review study of TT and TH oesophageal resection at a high-volume tertiary referral centre for oesophageal diseases. General demographics and outcomes of the patients were accumulated prospectively in an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved database. Intra-operative haemodynamic measurements were obtained from anaesthetic records. A total of 40 patients (20 TT+20 TH) were retrospectively identified after matching them for age, co-morbidities, tumour stage and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status. Main outcome measures included perioperative outcomes, operative time, blood loss, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, incidence and types of dysrhythmias, incidence of intra-operative hypotension and vasopressor usage, as well as perioperative morbidity and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Indications for resection included oesophageal cancer (27 patients), high-grade dysplasia (six patients), laryngopharyngoesophageal cancer (three patients), achalasia (two patients) and scleroderma (1 patient). Nine patents with oesophageal cancer had pT3 tumours (TH1, TT8). The mortality was zero in both groups. The total duration of hospitalisation and ICU care was similar in both groups. The mean estimated blood loss was 213 ml (range 100-400 ml) for the TH group and 216 ml (range 80-500 ml) for the TT group. The median operating times for both approaches were similar (398 min TH vs 382 min TT). Intra-operative dysrhythmias were noted in 11 TH and 15 TT patients. Both groups maintained at least 80% of the pre-operative systolic blood pressure (SBP) intra-operatively (TT 89% vs TH 85%) and required vasopressors in comparable quantities. The comparative statistical analysis of intra-operative incidences of hypotensive episodes below 100, 90 and 80 mm Hg showed no significant differences in both groups. However, the TH group experienced a greater frequency of acute hypotension (acute SBP decreases by ≥ 10 mm Hg per 5-min reading) intra-operatively (TH 25% vs TT 16% of operative time), p=0.02. Phenylephrine infusions were required for longer periods in the TH group (TH 52.7% vs TT 33.6% of operation time), p=0.01. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that intra-operative haemodynamic changes and perioperative outcomes are similar in both TT and TH approaches for oesophagectomy in a well-matched cohort of patients. Patients undergoing the TH approach demonstrated a higher frequency of intra-operative haemodynamic lability. The approaches to oesophageal resection should be based on matching the operation to the patient's pre-existing conditions and tumour characteristics rather than perceived differences in haemodynamic impact.