Pilot Study Comparing Leg Wound Complications From Vein Harvest

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Pilot Study: Observational Non-Randomized Comparative Study on Leg Wound Complications following Saphenous Vein Harvest (Single Institution Study)

  • IRAS ID

    227364

  • Contact name

    Susan Hall

  • Contact email

    susan.hall@anglia.ac.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    Anglia Ruskin University

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 6 months, 15 days

  • Research summary

    The objective of this study is to look into the complications for leg wound-site following taking a vein from the leg of the patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery comparing two different techniques: conventional open technique (COT- where vein is taken using long continuous incision) and standard bridge technique (SBT- vein is taken in minimal- invasive stripping fashion). The outcome of interests are infection, pain and saphenous neuralgia. This study will not settle on a particular technique but rather to aim to investigate the wound-site complications thoroughly comparing outcomes from the two techniques. Due to the difference in technique, it hopes to answer the following question: "will the SBT significantly decrease the overall leg wound morbidities including non-infective wound healing disturbances compared to COT after taking the vein from the leg?". Patients will undergo a series of postoperative observation such as day 3 postoperative surgery assessment followed by day of discharge (day 6 or earlier) assessment. The study itself should take 3 months including data collection. Sample targets will be 20-30 patients and will be conducted in St Thomas' Hospital NHS. Hopefully, from gathering data and results from this study, this can help to further explore and investigate the potential harm from wound-site complications that is affecting the overall recovery of patients as well as the consequences for the hospital from the prolonged in-hospital stay.

  • REC name

    London - Stanmore Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    17/LO/0739

  • Date of REC Opinion

    7 Jun 2017

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion