ReviewInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
An Expert Panel Review of Endoscopic Vein Harvesting Devices: Benefits, Limitations, and Clinical Insights.
Review in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEndoscopic 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsStudies 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.
conclusionsNo 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.