专家小组回顾内窥镜静脉采集装置:益处,局限性和临床见解。

0 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
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":"专家小组回顾内窥镜静脉采集装置:益处,局限性和临床见解。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

目的:内窥镜血管采集(EVH)设备技术复杂,由于需要精细的手眼协调和设备熟悉度,新手从业者的学习曲线可能会很陡峭。培训和指导方法差别很大,进入EVH实践的从业人员的经验水平也各不相同。方法:本专家综述由来自英国、美国和塞尔维亚的10名具有18至28年经验的EVH专家进行。对EMBASE、Cochrane、PubMed、CINAHL和谷歌Scholar的综合检索显示EVH设备没有正面比较研究。因此,该小组评估了EVH设备行业规范和白皮书,以分析当前系统的发展、组件特征和局限性。还寻求专家共识概述理想的设备属性和训练增强。结果:研究表明EVH的学习曲线范围为5 ~ 30例;然而,研究报道,即使在100例病例后,学习可能是不完整的,特别是当使用光学相干断层扫描评估导管损伤时。缺乏高质量的比较研究和设备设计、制度实践和用户体验的广泛变化阻碍了对任何特定EVH系统优越性的结论。器械的选择往往更多地基于培训背景和可用性,而不是临床证据。结论:没有现有的研究将特定器械相关的学习曲线与临床结果或导管质量联系起来。显然需要独立的器械评估、标准化的培训计划和可靠的比较结果数据,以支持以证据为基础的器械选择,优先考虑患者安全和导管长期通畅。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Expert Panel Review of Endoscopic Vein Harvesting Devices: Benefits, Limitations, and Clinical Insights.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信