A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: in [patients undergoing coronary revascularisation] is [endoscopic vein harvest] superior to [open harvest] in improving [clinical outcome and cost effectiveness]? Altogether >166 papers were found using the reported search, of which eight represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. All papers agree that endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) reduces the level of postoperative pain (pain score for EVH=0.52+/-0.95; open technique=1.02+/-1.51; P=0.03) and wound complications (range from 3 to 7.4% for EVH and 13 to 19.4% for conventional technique). These clinical benefits were associated with a high level of patient satisfaction. On average, four papers found that the length of hospital stay was reduced in the EVH group [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.04 to -0.85; confidence interval (CI) -1.92 to -0.16; P=0.02]. The overall occlusion rates of venous grafts after six months were 21.7% for EVH and 17.6% for open technique. There were no differences in the six months occlusion and disease rates between EVH and conventional vein harvest (CVH), as determined by means of univariate analysis (P=0.584). However, some papers (PREVENT-IV sub-analysis and Yun et al.) called into question EVH by reporting high vein occlusion rates. At six months, this was 21.7% for EVH and 17.6% for open technique rising to 46.7% vs. 38.0% (P<0.001) at 12-18 months. At three years, endoscopic harvesting was also associated with higher rates of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation (20.2% vs. 17.4%; P=0.04), death or myocardial infarction (9.3% vs. 7.6%; P=0.01), and death (7.4% vs. 5.8%; P=0.005). We conclude that EVH reduces the level of postoperative pain and wound complication, with a high-level of patient satisfaction but a sub-analysis of a large RCT has recently called into question the medium- to long-term patency of grafts endoscopically harvested.