4.6 Article

Effects of radial artery harvesting on forearm function and blood flow

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 75, Issue 4, Pages 1171-1174

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04813-0

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. There is little information on the effects of radial artery harvesting on postoperative forearm function and blood flow. We evaluated the early changes in forearm neural sensation, circumference, grip power, cyclical exercise fatigue, and blood flow after radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Methods. Twenty-three patients with negative Allen's test of the nondominant forearm were recruited preoperatively and underwent assessment of bilateral forearm function (soft touch and pin-prick neural sensation, circumference, handgrip power, cyclical exercise fatigue)and blood flow measurements (forearm plethysmography). All vasoactive drugs were stopped 24 hours before assessments. Identical follow-up assessments were conducted (mean SEM) 3.4 +/- 0.4 months postoperatively. Results. At the time of postoperative assessment all harvested forearm wounds were healed. There was no reduction of postoperative soft touch sensation but in 3 patients objective pinprick sensation was reduced in the distribution of the lateral antebrachial cutaneous nerve of the harvested forearms. Postoperative forearm circumference (P < 0.05) and grip power (p < 0.05) were significantly reduced in both forearms, however cyclical exercise fatigue was improved in both forearms. Preoperative and postoperative forearm blood flow at rest and in exercise-induced ischemic reperfusion were not significantly different in both forearms. Conclusions. In patients with a negative Allen's test, harvesting of the radial artery does not adversely affect subsequent forearm function or blood flow to a clinically significant degree. (C) 2003 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available