Literature DB >> 29915143

A propensity matched analysis of robotic, minimally invasive, and conventional mitral valve surgery.

Robert B Hawkins1, J Hunter Mehaffey1, Matthew G Mullen1, Wiley L Nifong2, W Randolph Chitwood1, Marc R Katz3, Mohammed A Quader4, Andy C Kiser2, Alan M Speir5, Gorav Ailawadi1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Institutional studies suggest robotic mitral surgery may be associated with superior outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic, minimally invasive (mini), and conventional mitral surgery.
METHODS: A total of 2300 patients undergoing non-emergent isolated mitral valve operations from 2011 to 2016 were extracted from a regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients were stratified by approach: robotic (n=372), mini (n=576) and conventional sternotomy (n=1352). To account for preoperative differences, robotic cases were propensity score matched (1:1) to both conventional and mini approaches.
RESULTS: The robotic cases were well matched to the conventional (n=314) and mini (n=295) cases with no significant baseline differences. Rates of mitral repair were high in the robotic and mini cohorts (91%), but significantly lower with conventional (76%, P<0.0001) despite similar rates of degenerative disease. All procedural times were longest in the robotic cohort, including operative time (224 vs 168 min conventional, 222 vs 180 min mini; all P<0.0001). The robotic approach had comparable outcomes to the conventional approach except there were fewer discharges to a facility (7% vs 15%, P=0.001) and 1 less day in the hospital (P<0.0001). However, compared with the mini approach, the robotic approach had more transfusions (15% vs 5%, P<0.0001), higher atrial fibrillation rates (26% vs 18%, P=0.01), and 1 day longer average hospital stay (P=0.02).
CONCLUSION: Despite longer procedural times, robotic and mini patients had similar complication rates with higher repair rates and shorter length of stay metrics compared with conventional surgery. However, the robotic approach was associated with higher atrial fibrillation rates, more transfusions and longer postoperative stays compared with minimally invasive approach. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cardiac surgery; mitral regurgitation; valve disease surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29915143      PMCID: PMC6237642          DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2018-313129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  26 in total

1.  Computer-enhanced "robotic" cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients.

Authors:  F W Mohr; V Falk; A Diegeler; T Walther; J F Gummert; J Bucerius; S Jacobs; R Autschbach
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 5.209

2.  J. Maxwell Chamberlain Memorial Paper for adult cardiac surgery. Less-invasive mitral valve operations: trends and outcomes from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

Authors:  James S Gammie; Yue Zhao; Eric D Peterson; Sean M O'Brien; J Scott Rankin; Bartley P Griffith
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Influence of hospital procedural volume on care process and mortality for patients undergoing elective surgery for mitral regurgitation.

Authors:  James S Gammie; Sean M O'Brien; Bartley P Griffith; T Bruce Ferguson; Eric D Peterson
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2007-02-05       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Video-assisted minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: the "micro-mitral" operation.

Authors:  W R Chitwood; J R Elbeery; W H Chapman; J M Moran; R L Lust; W A Wooden; D H Deaton
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 5.209

5.  Cost effectiveness of robotic mitral valve surgery.

Authors:  Emmanuel Moss; Michael E Halkos
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-01

6.  Robotic mitral valve repair for all prolapse subsets using techniques identical to open valvuloplasty: establishing the benchmark against which percutaneous interventions should be judged.

Authors:  Rakesh M Suri; Harold M Burkhart; Richard C Daly; Joseph A Dearani; Soon J Park; Thoralf M Sundt; Zhuo Li; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano; Hartzell V Schaff
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2011-09-10       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  [Open heart operation under videosurgery and minithoracotomy. First case (mitral valvuloplasty) operated with success].

Authors:  A Carpentier; D Loulmet; A Carpentier; E Le Bret; B Haugades; P Dassier; P Guibourt
Journal:  C R Acad Sci III       Date:  1996-03

8.  Mitral valve repair rates correlate with surgeon and institutional experience.

Authors:  Damien J LaPar; Gorav Ailawadi; James M Isbell; Ivan K Crosby; John A Kern; Jeffrey B Rich; Alan M Speir; Irving L Kron
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 5.209

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

Authors:  Y Joseph Woo; Elliot A Nacke
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.982

10.  Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery Provides Excellent Outcomes Without Increased Cost: A Multi-Institutional Analysis.

Authors:  Emily A Downs; Lily E Johnston; Damien J LaPar; Ravi K Ghanta; Irving L Kron; Alan M Speir; Clifford E Fonner; John A Kern; Gorav Ailawadi
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 4.330

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Robotic mitral valve surgery: a review and tips for safely negotiating the learning curve.

Authors:  Caroline Toolan; Kenneth Palmer; Omar Al-Rawi; Tim Ridgway; Paul Modi
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Mitral surgery: The endgame.

Authors:  Mario Castillo-Sang; Rochus Voeller; Gorav Ailawadi
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2022-04-12

3.  Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery with or without robotics: Examining the evidence.

Authors:  Hiroto Kitahara; Husam H Balkhy
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 1.778

4.  Robotic versus conventional sternotomy mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael L Williams; Bridget Hwang; Linna Huang; Ashley Wilson-Smith; John Brookes; Aditya Eranki; Tristan D Yan; T Sloane Guy; Johannes Bonatti
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2022-09

5.  Commentary: Robotic repair of a sinus venosus atrial septal defect in an adult patient: A technical stunt or a preview of things to come?

Authors:  Joshua L Hermsen; Petros V Anagnostopoulos
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2020-09-28
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.