Key result
This review examines the evidence comparing the skeletonization technique versus the conventional pedicled technique for harvesting the internal mammary artery to reduce sternal wound complications.
Why the study?
Does the skeletonization technique reduce sternal wound complications compared to the conventional pedicled technique in patients undergoing surgical coronary revascularization?
Does the skeletonization technique reduce sternal wound complications compared to the conventional pedicled technique in patients undergoing surgical coronary revascularization?
This review examines the evidence on whether skeletonization of the internal mammary artery reduces sternal wound complications compared to the conventional pedicled technique during coronary artery bypass grafting.
The use of a single internal mammary graft to the left anterior descending artery has been the gold standard in surgical coronary revascularization since its introduction. However, the take-up rate of use of bilateral internal mammary arteries has been slow despite emerging evidence. This has been partly due to the worry of postoperative complications, in particular, sternal wound complications. Skeletonization of the internal mammary has been proposed as a technique that can preserve the sternal microcirculation and therefore reduce this complication. In this article, we examine the evidence comparing the skeletonization technique versus the conventional pedicled technique for harvesting the internal mammary artery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parissis et al. (2013) conducted a review in Surgical coronary revascularization. Skeletonization technique for harvesting the internal mammary artery vs. Conventional pedicled technique was evaluated on Sternal wound complications. This review examines the evidence comparing the skeletonization technique versus the conventional pedicled technique for harvesting the internal mammary artery to reduce sternal wound complications.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: