SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1534734608324172v1
7/4/210    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reed, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reed, J. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Leg Wound Infections Following Greater Saphenous Vein Harvesting: Minimally Invasive Vein Harvesting Versus Conventional Vein Harvesting

James F. Reed, PhD

JamesReed{at}gmail.com., Academic Affairs, Christiana Care Hospital System, Newark, Delaware

Wound complications associated with long incisions used to harvest the greater saphenous vein are common and well documented. We compared leg wound infection rates, wound healing disturbances (WHDs), length of vein harvested, vein harvest time, and total surgical time between minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting (MIVH) and conventional vein harvesting (CVH) techniques. This meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in wound infections in favor of the MIVH group (odds ratio = 0.19; 95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.25) and a significant reduction in WHDs in favor of the MIVH group (odds ratio = 0.26; 95% confidence interval = 0.20-0.34). The MIVH and CVH techniques are equivalent with respect to saphenous vein harvest time, saphenous vein harvest length, and total surgical time. A visual inspection of "funnel" plots suggests a mild to moderate publication bias. This meta-analysis suggests that leg wound infections and wound healing disturbances are reduced using MIVH techniques.

Key Words: endoscopic vein harvesting • conventional vein harvesting • saphenous vein harvesting • wound complications • meta-analysis

This version was published on December 1, 2008

The International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds, Vol. 7, No. 4, 210-219 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1534734608324172
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?