Quicker yet safe: skeletonization of 1640 internal mammary arteries with harmonic technology in 965 patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Skeletonization of the internal mammary artery (IMA) facilitates arterial grafting and has been shown to reduce deep sternal infection but is more time-consuming and tedious than pedicle harvest. We wished to determine if use of harmonic technology (HT) facilitates skeletonization of the IMA and is as safe as the conventional technique of skeletonization. METHODS: In a consecutive series of 1057 patients with isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery from 2003 to 2013, adverse events and recorded harvest times were compared between harmonic (965 patients) and non-harmonic patients (86 patients). RESULTS: HT was used to harvest 1640 IMAs in 965 (91%) of 1057 consecutive CABG patients and skeletonization with the traditional technique (use of an electrocautery tip as a dissector) was used to harvest 147 IMAs in 86 patients. Six patients had no IMA harvested with this surgery (4 patients had an IMA used from a previous CABG, 1 had no disease of the left anterior descending coronary artery and 1 patient was in cardiogenic shock precluding IMA use). Excluding patients with single-vessel disease, 730/987 (74%) of patients received bilateral IMAs. Demographics of patients with and without harmonic skeletonization, respectively, were the following: mean age: 64.7 vs 67.7 years; diabetes: 33 vs 34%; women: 21 vs 26% and median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation: 2.9 vs 3.2. The mean harvest time for 77 non-harmonic skeletonized mammary arteries (49 surgeries) was 32.2 min (95% confidence interval (CI): 30.1, 34.3), for harmonic skeletonized arteries after 450 surgeries was 28.4 min, (95% CI: 27.8, 29.1) and in the last 100 IMAs harvested for the isolated harmonic device use/mammary was 15.4 min (95% CI: 14.0, 16.7). Major adverse events for patients with and without harmonic skeletonization, respectively, were: reoperation for bleeding: 2.7 vs 3.5% (difference = 0.8%, 95% CI: -3.2, 4.8); damaged mammaries: 0.4 vs 0.7% (difference = 0.3%, 95% CI: -1.0, 1.7); deep sternal infection: 1.6 vs 1.2% (difference = -0.4%, 95% CI: -2.8, 2.0) and perioperative infarction: 1.7 vs 2.3% (difference = 0.7%, 95% CI: -2.6, 4.0). CONCLUSION: In this largest series to date of harmonic IMA skeletonization, this technique results in rare damage, is quicker and with a comparable adverse event rate compared with the non-harmonic method.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".