ArticleElectronic physician2016
Clinicopathological comparisons of open vein harvesting and endoscopic vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting patients in Mashhad.
Article in Electronic physician, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endoscopic versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHarvesting of the greater saphenous vein is almost an inevitable part of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operations, and it is done by two main techniques, i.e., conventional or open vein harvesting (OVH) and the minimally-invasive endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH). This study aimed to compare these two techniques in off-pump CABG procedures with respect to clinical and pathological outcomes.
methodsThis cohort study was conducted on CABG candidates during a one-year period from October 2013 through September 2014 in the Department of Cardiac Surgery at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Eighty-seven patients voluntarily underwent EVH, and another 86 patients matched for age, gender, and other cardiovascular risk factors were selected for OVH. They were followed up for six weeks, and the main outcome measures were infections of the wound, pain, duration of hospital stay, and the costs of hospitalization. Paired sample t-test, independent t-test, or their non-parametric equivalents and the chi-squared test were used by SPSS version 17.0 for data analysis.
resultsThe mean duration of time for vein harvesting was shorter in the EVH group (p < 0.001), and the pain score was lower (p = 0.04). No infections occurred at the site of the wound. The length of hospital stay was not significantly different for the two groups (OVH versus EVH: 8.5 ± 3.3 versus 8.4 ± 3.2 days; p-value: 0.08). Hospitalization costs were significantly higher in the EVH group (OVH versus EVH: 5.8 ± 4.7 versus 7.3 ± 2.0 million Tomman; p-value: 0.008), yet no difference was diagnosed with respect to endothelial damage in the vein grafts harvested by the EVH and OVH techniques.
conclusionEVH is considered as a minimally invasive and safe vein harvesting technique in our Center, and it can reduce the harvesting time and post-operative pain. In addition, its efficiency was similar to that of OVH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.