Literature DB >> 16904978

Robotic minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction yields less blood product transfusion and shorter length of stay.

Y Joseph Woo1, Elliot A Nacke.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction has gained popularity recently. Initial reports suggest that this approach can be used with relative safety and efficacy. Direct comparisons with a traditional sternotomy approach have not yet been explored extensively.
METHODS: All mitral valve procedures that were performed by a single surgeon during a 3-year period of time were analyzed (n = 142 procedures). Patients whose condition required concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve surgery were excluded subsequently from analysis, because all of these patients were approached obligatorily by sternotomy (n = 71 patients). Six patients underwent right thoracotomy mitral valve procedures without robotic assistance, and 1 patient in cardiogenic shock underwent emergent mitral valve reconstruction by sternotomy. Of the remaining 64 patients who were eligible theoretically for sternotomy or robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery, 39 patients underwent sternotomy, and 25 patients underwent right chest minimally invasive robotic-assisted surgery. Randomization between these 2 approaches would be almost impossible in the United States. The primary determinant for the choice of approach was request of the referring physician or patient. Multiple perioperative outcomes were then compared.
RESULTS: Patients who underwent sternotomy and robotic-assisted surgery exhibited equivalent preoperative characteristics and experienced an equivalent degree of correction of mitral regurgitation in repairs and in need for replacement. Complex mitral valve repairs that entailed leaflet resection and reapproximation, annular plication, sliding annuloplasty, chordal transfer, and GoreTex neochordal construction were accomplished successfully with the robotic system. Cross-clamp and bypass times were longer for patients in the minimally invasive group (110 vs 151 minutes; P = .0015; 162 vs 239 minutes; P < .001, respectively). Mean packed red blood cell transfusion was lower among patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery (5.0 vs 2.8 units; P = .04). Patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgeries experienced shorter mean duration of postoperative hospitalization (10.6 vs 7.1 days; P = .04). There was 1 death among the patients who underwent sternotomy, and no deaths among the patients who underwent robotic-assisted surgery.
CONCLUSION: Patients can undergo mitral valve reconstruction with minimally invasive robotic assistance, avoid a sternotomy, require less blood product transfusion, and experience shorter hospitalization.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16904978     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.05.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  24 in total

Review 1.  Video-atlas on robotically assisted mitral valve surgery.

Authors:  Bryan Bush; L Wiley Nifong; Hazaim Alwair; W Randolph Chitwood
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2013-11

2.  Propensity-matched analysis of minimally invasive mitral valve repair using a nationwide surgical database.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Nishi; Hiroaki Miyata; Noboru Motomura; Koichi Toda; Shigeru Miyagawa; Yoshiki Sawa; Shinichi Takamoto
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2015-06-27       Impact factor: 2.549

Review 3.  Integrate imaging approach for minimally invasive and robotic procedures.

Authors:  Nikolay A Ivanov; Daniel B Green; T Sloane Guy
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 4.  Robotic mitral repair for Barlow's disease with bileaflet prolapse and annular calcification using pericardial patch technique.

Authors:  Didier F Loulmet; Michael S Koeckert; Peter J Neuburger; Robert Nampiaparampil; Eugene A Grossi
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-01

5.  Anesthetic considerations in robotic mitral valve surgery.

Authors:  Kent H Rehfeldt; J Valery Andre; Matthew J Ritter
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-01

6.  Minimally invasive approach provides at least equivalent results for surgical correction of mitral regurgitation: a propensity-matched comparison.

Authors:  Andrew B Goldstone; Pavan Atluri; Wilson Y Szeto; Alen Trubelja; Jessica L Howard; John W MacArthur; Craig Newcomb; Joseph P Donnelly; Dale M Kobrin; Mary A Sheridan; Christiana Powers; Robert C Gorman; Joseph H Gorman; Alberto Pochettino; Joseph E Bavaria; Michael A Acker; W Clark Hargrove; Y Joseph Woo
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  Declining blood collection and utilization in the United States.

Authors:  Koo-Whang Chung; Sridhar V Basavaraju; Yi Mu; Katharina L van Santen; Kathryn A Haass; Richard Henry; James Berger; Matthew J Kuehnert
Journal:  Transfusion       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 3.157

8.  Is minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgery the new benchmark for treating mitral valve disease?

Authors:  Andrew B Goldstone; Y Joseph Woo
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2016-11

Review 9.  The clinical anatomy and pathology of the human atrioventricular valves: implications for repair or replacement.

Authors:  Michael G Bateman; Jason L Quill; Alexander J Hill; Paul A Iaizzo
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2013-01-22       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 10.  A meta-analysis of robotic vs. conventional mitral valve surgery.

Authors:  Christopher Cao; Hugh Wolfenden; Kevin Liou; Faraz Pathan; Sunil Gupta; Thomas A Nienaber; David Chandrakumar; Praveen Indraratna; Tristan D Yan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.