↓ Skip to main content

A comprehensive review on learning curve associated problems in endoscopic vein harvesting and the requirement for a standardised training programme

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comprehensive review on learning curve associated problems in endoscopic vein harvesting and the requirement for a standardised training programme
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13019-016-0442-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy, William R. Critchley, Rajamiyer V. Venkateswaran, James Barnard, Ann Caress, James E. Fildes, Nizar Yonan

Abstract

Endoscopic vein harvesting is becoming one of the most favourable vein harvesting techniques in multiple bypass coronary surgery, due to its short term post-operative benefits with high patient satisfaction. However, long-term graft patency has been both supported and questioned in the literature. Graft failure can be affected by harvesting methods and operator's experience. Endoscopic vein harvesting is associated with a learning curve period, during which the incidence of vein trauma is high due to unfamiliarity with the surgical technique. There is a paucity of structured learning tools for novice practitioners, meaning that training differs significantly between hospital centres. Inconsistent training methods can lead to poor surgical technique, which can have a significant impact on vein quality and stress level of the practitioner. In turn, this can lead to increased postoperative complications and longer surgical duration. The main aim of this literature review is to understand the impact of the learning curve on the vein conduit and whether there is a requirement for a standardised training programme for the novice practitioners.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 26%