OBJECTIVE: A robotic-assisted approach potentially has many advantages for cardiac reoperation, which include sternum-sparing and three-dimensional visualization leading to precise adhesiolysis and excellent exposure in a limited field. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our patients undergoing robotic cardiac reoperation (redo group) from July 2013 to April 2017 at our institution and compared with our patients undergoing standard robotic surgery (nonredo group). In the reoperative cases, a thoracoscope was inserted through a 5-mm port placed away from the previous scar. Another 5-mm port was inserted under direct vision to make space for one or two robotic arms, and further precise dissection was performed robotically. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients underwent robotic-assisted cardiac surgery. There were 36 patients who had one or more previous cardiac surgeries (42 surgeries). Although the mean operative and cardiopulmonary bypass time were longer in the redo group (median = 351 minutes vs. 289 minutes and 219 minutes vs. 178 minutes, P < 0.05, respectively), cardiac arrest time was similar between two groups. The redo group had a higher incidence of postoperative prolonged ventilation (16.7% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.046) and pneumonia (11.1% vs. 0.2%, P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was 2.8% (1/36) in the redo group and similar to that in the nonredo group (1.3%, P = 0.419). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic cardiac reoperation is feasible with acceptable clinical outcomes including a low mortality rate similar to standard robotic surgery in our hands. Robotic assistance may have the potential to minimize morbidity and mortality.
OBJECTIVE: A robotic-assisted approach potentially has many advantages for cardiac reoperation, which include sternum-sparing and three-dimensional visualization leading to precise adhesiolysis and excellent exposure in a limited field. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our patients undergoing robotic cardiac reoperation (redo group) from July 2013 to April 2017 at our institution and compared with our patients undergoing standard robotic surgery (nonredo group). In the reoperative cases, a thoracoscope was inserted through a 5-mm port placed away from the previous scar. Another 5-mm port was inserted under direct vision to make space for one or two robotic arms, and further precise dissection was performed robotically. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients underwent robotic-assisted cardiac surgery. There were 36 patients who had one or more previous cardiac surgeries (42 surgeries). Although the mean operative and cardiopulmonary bypass time were longer in the redo group (median = 351 minutes vs. 289 minutes and 219 minutes vs. 178 minutes, P < 0.05, respectively), cardiac arrest time was similar between two groups. The redo group had a higher incidence of postoperative prolonged ventilation (16.7% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.046) and pneumonia (11.1% vs. 0.2%, P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality was 2.8% (1/36) in the redo group and similar to that in the nonredo group (1.3%, P = 0.419). CONCLUSIONS:Robotic cardiac reoperation is feasible with acceptable clinical outcomes including a low mortality rate similar to standard robotic surgery in our hands. Robotic assistance may have the potential to minimize morbidity and mortality.