Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 5, 2025
Creating Radio-cephalic Arteriovenous Fistula in the Forearm with a Modified No-Touch Technique
Published on: April 1, 2022
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Using the No-Touch Great Saphenous Vein Graft Harvesting Technique: A Retrospective
Tomohiro Nakajima1, Tsuyoshi Shibata1, Shuhei Miura1
1Cardiovascular Surgery, Sapporo Medical University, Sapporo, JPN.
Insights
This study compared no-touch great saphenous vein grafts (NT-SVG) with conventional saphenous vein grafts (SVG) for coronary artery bypass grafting. Results showed no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the two methods.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Vascular Grafting
Background:
- Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) frequently utilizes the great saphenous vein (GSV).
- Comparison between no-touch great saphenous vein (NT-GSV) and conventional great saphenous vein (C-GSV) harvesting techniques is crucial for optimizing CABG outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the perioperative outcomes of NT-GSV versus C-GSV in coronary artery bypass grafting.
- To evaluate graft patency, wound healing, and other surgical factors between the two GSV harvesting methods.
Main Methods:
- A 15-year retrospective study (2007-2022) of 183 patients undergoing CABG using GSV.
- Patients were divided into NT-GSV (n=29) and C-GSV (n=154) groups.
- Primary endpoint: GSV patency at discharge. Secondary endpoints: delayed wound healing and factors related to CABG.
Main Results:
- No significant differences were observed in perioperative outcomes between the NT-GSV and C-GSV groups.
- Graft patency at discharge, lower leg wound healing, and mid-thoracic wound healing were comparable.
- Transit-time flow measurement (TTFM) data was also analyzed for flow characteristics.
Conclusions:
- The no-touch great saphenous vein harvesting technique demonstrates comparable perioperative safety and efficacy to the conventional method in coronary artery bypass grafting.
- Both NT-GSV and C-GSV are viable options for CABG, with no significant differences in early outcomes observed in this cohort.
Abstract:
Background We focused on coronary artery bypass grafting using the great saphenous vein and compared the no-touch great saphenous vein and conventional great saphenous vein. Methods Coronary artery bypass grafting using the great saphenous vein was performed at our hospital over a 15-year period from 2007/04 to 2022/08. The primary endpoint was the patency of the great saphenous vein at discharge, and secondary endpoints were delayed healing of the great saphenous vein harvest wound, delayed healing of the mid-thoracic wound, and factors related to coronary artery bypass surgery. Results There were 183 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery using the great saphenous vein during the study period. There were 131 male patients (72%) and 52 female patients (28%) with a mean age of 69 years (38-94 years). The method of harvesting the great saphenous vein was a no-touch great saphenous vein graft (NT-SVG) in 29 cases (16%) and conventional SVG in 154 cases (84%). Patients were divided into two groups: the NT-SVG group and the standard-collection saphenous vein graft (SVG) group. We compared graft patency at discharge, healing failure of the lower leg wound, healing failure of the mid-thoracic wound, and flow by transit-time flow measurement (TTFM). Conclusion There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the NT-SVG and conventional SVG groups in this study.
