Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy, Sam Raaj, Andjela Susanj, Gianluca Adinolfi, Donna Croft, Asher G Joseph, Michael L Sullivan, Thuy Le, Matthew Petrides, Chris Darst, Richard M Vitali, Igor Zivkovic, James B Barnard
{"title":"An Expert Panel Review of Endoscopic Vein Harvesting Devices: Benefits, Limitations, and Clinical Insights.","authors":"Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy, Sam Raaj, Andjela Susanj, Gianluca Adinolfi, Donna Croft, Asher G Joseph, Michael L Sullivan, Thuy Le, Matthew Petrides, Chris Darst, Richard M Vitali, Igor Zivkovic, James B Barnard","doi":"10.1093/icvts/ivaf204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Endoscopic vessel harvesting (EVH) devices are technically complex and the learning curve for novice practitioners can be steep, due to the need for refined hand-eye coordination and device familiarity. Training and mentoring approaches vary widely, as does the experience level of practitioners entering EVH practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This expert review was conducted by 10 international EVH specialists from the United Kingdom, United States, and Serbia, each with 18 to 28 years of experience. Comprehensive searches of EMBASE, Cochrane, PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar revealed no head-to-head comparative studies of EVH devices. As a result, the group evaluated EVH device industry specifications and white papers to analyse the evolution, component features, and limitations of current systems. Expert consensus was also sought to outline ideal device attributes and training enhancements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Studies suggest the EVH learning curve ranges from 5 to 30 cases; however, studies have reported that even after 100 cases, learning may be incomplete, particularly when assessed using optical coherence tomography for conduit injury. A lack of high-quality comparative studies and wide variability in device design, institutional practices, and user experience hinder conclusions about the superiority of any specific EVH system. Device choice is often based more on training background and availability than on clinical evidence.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No existing studies link specific device-related learning curves to clinical outcomes or conduit quality. There is an apparent need for independent device evaluation, standardized training programmes, and robust comparative outcome data to support evidence-based device selection that prioritizes patient safety and conduit long-term patency.</p>","PeriodicalId":73406,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaf204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Endoscopic vessel harvesting (EVH) devices are technically complex and the learning curve for novice practitioners can be steep, due to the need for refined hand-eye coordination and device familiarity. Training and mentoring approaches vary widely, as does the experience level of practitioners entering EVH practice.
Methods: This expert review was conducted by 10 international EVH specialists from the United Kingdom, United States, and Serbia, each with 18 to 28 years of experience. Comprehensive searches of EMBASE, Cochrane, PubMed, CINAHL, and Google Scholar revealed no head-to-head comparative studies of EVH devices. As a result, the group evaluated EVH device industry specifications and white papers to analyse the evolution, component features, and limitations of current systems. Expert consensus was also sought to outline ideal device attributes and training enhancements.
Results: Studies suggest the EVH learning curve ranges from 5 to 30 cases; however, studies have reported that even after 100 cases, learning may be incomplete, particularly when assessed using optical coherence tomography for conduit injury. A lack of high-quality comparative studies and wide variability in device design, institutional practices, and user experience hinder conclusions about the superiority of any specific EVH system. Device choice is often based more on training background and availability than on clinical evidence.
Conclusions: No existing studies link specific device-related learning curves to clinical outcomes or conduit quality. There is an apparent need for independent device evaluation, standardized training programmes, and robust comparative outcome data to support evidence-based device selection that prioritizes patient safety and conduit long-term patency.