ArticleIndian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2025
No-touch technique for saphenous vein graft harvesting in coronary artery bypass surgery safely improves graft patency: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Techniques for harvesting the saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass grafting: a network systematic review and meta-analysis.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- 'No-touch' or 'soft-touch' vein graft harvesting for CABG.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The no-touch (NT) technique for saphenous vein graft (SVG) harvesting has been gaining popularity as several trials have shown its superiority in maintaining graft patency. However, this technique's clinical outcome and safety are still disputed and the results vary widely. The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess the effectiveness and safety of this method. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were conducted for this systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out with Embase, Scopus, and PubMed databases. The articles underwent extensive evaluation and analysis. Results: Six RCTs comparing the NT and conventional (CON) techniques were included. Primary outcomes were measured using graft occlusion. Graft failure rates and clinical outcomes including major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and leg wound complications were evaluated as secondary outcomes. The NT technique significantly decreased graft occlusion (risk ratio (RR) = 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.46 to 0.72; Conclusion: The NT technique increases long-term graft patency with no significant risk difference for clinical outcomes compared to the CON technique. However, the leg wound complications are significantly higher in the NT technique compared to the CON technique. Graphical Abstract:
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.