Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39962020›Full record

SynthesisGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2025

Lymphatic complication in open venous harvesting versus endoscopic venous harvesting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alireza Razavi, Mehrdad Mahalleh, Amirparsa Vanaki, Amirhossein Fallah, Amirhossein Bahanesteh, Ali Ahmadi, Hossein Yarmohammadi, Morteza Solati Kooshkqazi, Masood Soltanipur

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in General 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Alireza RazaviResearch Center for Clinical Virology, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4386-4672
Mehrdad MahallehTehran Heart Center, Cardiovascular Diseases Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6210-2112
Amirparsa VanakiMedical Students Research Committee, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-1515-1580
Amirhossein FallahMedical Students Research Committee, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5446-9121
Amirhossein BahanestehMedical Students Research Committee, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7545-7326
Ali AhmadiMedical Students Research Committee, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4277-3924
Hossein YarmohammadiQuality of Life Department, Breast Cancer Research Center, Motamed Cancer Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8316-9511
Morteza Solati KooshkqaziStudent Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Masood SoltanipurQuality of Life Department, Breast Cancer Research Center, Motamed Cancer Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. masood.soltanipur@shahed.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9590-2776

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe methods for saphenous vein (SV) harvesting include bridging vein harvesting (BVH), open vein harvesting (OVH), and endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH). Lymphatic complications, such as lymphatic leak, lymphedema, lymphangitis, and lymphocele, can arise following SV-harvesting surgery. This study aims to compare the incidence of lymphatic complications in SV harvesting using the OVH surgical method versus EVH.

methodsWe have systematically searched databases including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science until April 2024. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they performed SV harvesting and compared lymphatic complications in the EVH with OVH or BVH. Various lymphatic complications and follow-up periods were extracted. A meta-analysis was conducted comparing the relative risk (RR) of lymphatic complications in the EVH group versus the OVH group.

resultsTwelve studies were included. A total of 1934 patients were involved and the majority were male. Follow-up times were from 6 days to 34 months. Results of the meta-analysis showed that the pooled lymphatic complications, lymphatic leak, and lymphedema are significantly higher in OVH versus EVH (RR = 6.78, p value < 0.01; RR = 17.33, p value < 0.01; RR = 8.88, p value < 0.01, respectively). No significant differences in lymphocele rates between the two methods (RR = 1.2, p value = 0.77). Both short-term and long-term follow-ups showed elevated lymphatic complication risks in OVH relative to EVH (RR = 4.91, p value < 0.01; RR = 30.27, p value = 0.03, respectively).

conclusionEVH is linked to reduced rates of lymphatic complications. Also, OVH had a higher risk of lymphatic complications in the short and long term compared to EVH.

Indexed as

EndoscopyLymphatic DiseasesPostoperative ComplicationsSaphenous VeinTissue and Organ HarvestingFemaleHumansIncidenceLymphoceleMaleRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeBridging vein harvesting (BVH)Endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH)Lymphatic complicationsOpen vein harvesting (OVH)Saphenous vein harvesting

Identifiers

PMID39962020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.