ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patients with lower limb arterial disease have a high risk for complications related with surgical wounds. The endoscopic extraction of the great saphenous vein (GSV) is a less invasive alternative to the conventional surgical extraction. METHODS: A clinical and ultrasonographic follow-up was carried out on the lower limb bypass with GSV performed in our institution between years 2007 and 2012. Patients were selected for open or endoscopic harvesting depending on the surgeon assigned (endoscopic or open surgeon). Follow-up was performed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and annually thereafter. All the GSV endoscopic harvestings (GSVEH) were performed by the same surgeon. Data for primary, assisted, and secondary patency and amputation-free survival were analyzed. Anatomopathalogic analysis were performed on pares of samples of the same vein dissected surgically and endoscopically from the same patient. RESULTS: Sixty bypass surgery has been performed on 60 patients (54 men and 6 women), 30 with GSVEH (50%), and 30 with GSV open harvesting (GSVOH). All patients were intervened for critical limb ischemia (Rutherford cathegory 4, 5, and 6). Significant differences were found between both groups for suture dehiscence (GSVEH 0%, GSVOH 20%, P = 0.01) and infection (GSVEH 3%, GSVOH 30% P, 0.006). No significant differences were found between both groups regarding to primary patency, assisted primary patency, or amputation-free survival. An anatomopathologic comparison of segments of veins extracted surgically and endoscopically of the same patients did not show any significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Although no statistically significant differences were found between GSVOH and GSVEH bypass for lower limb revascularization, there is a trend toward poorer patency rates for the endoscopic technique. GSVEH lowers the risks for infection and dehiscence of surgical wounds.
