Literature DB >> 33224740

Comparison of clinical outcomes between robotic and thoracoscopic mitral valve repair.

Shixiong Wei1, Xin Zhang1, Huimin Cui1, Lin Zhang1, Zhiyun Gong1, Lianggang Li1, Tong Ren1, Changqing Gao1, Shengli Jiang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical outcomes and hospital cost of robotic versus thoracoscopic approaches to mitral valve plasty (MVP).
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who received minimal invasive MVP between 2007 January and 2020 January at our department. The basic characteristics, echocardiography, surgical data, postoperative adverse events and hospital cost of the patients were collected. The primary outcomes of this study were direct hospital cost and 30-day outcomes, including the operative time, complications, and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS: A total of 234 patients received minimally invasive MVP by using robotic (n=121) and thoracoscopic (n=113) technique respectively. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.9% (n=2), with no significant difference between two groups. The cardiopulmonary bypass time and aorta clamping time in thoracoscopic group were longer than that in robotic group (153.2±25.6 vs. 123.8±34.9 min and 111.8±23.0 vs. 84.9±24.3 min, P<0.001). The intraoperative blood transfusion rate (52.2% vs. 64.5%) and ICU time (2.8±2.3 vs. 3.6±2.7 days, all P<0.05) of the thoracoscopic group were lower than those in the robotic group. The adjusted hospital and operating room cost of the thoracoscopic group were significant lower ($18,208.4±$4,429.1 vs. $35,674.3±$4,936.1 and $9,038.3±$2,171.7 vs. $18,655.1±$2,558.3, all P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Both robotic and thoracoscopic approach for MVP are safe and reliable. Robotic technique has shorter operation time, while thoracoscopic technique has more advantages in blood transfusion rate, postoperative ventilation time, ICU duration and hospitalization expenses. 2020 Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive surgery; mitral valve repair; robotic techniques; thoracoscopic

Year:  2020        PMID: 33224740      PMCID: PMC7666952          DOI: 10.21037/cdt-20-197

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther        ISSN: 2223-3652


  11 in total

1.  Minimally invasive video-assisted mitral valve surgery: a 12-year, 2-center experience in 1178 patients.

Authors:  Paul Modi; Evelio Rodriguez; W Clark Hargrove; Ansar Hassan; Wilson Y Szeto; W Randolph Chitwood
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2009-03-29       Impact factor: 5.209

2.  Guidelines for performing a comprehensive transesophageal echocardiographic examination: recommendations from the American Society of Echocardiography and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists.

Authors:  Rebecca T Hahn; Theodore Abraham; Mark S Adams; Charles J Bruce; Kathryn E Glas; Roberto M Lang; Scott T Reeves; Jack S Shanewise; Samuel C Siu; William Stewart; Michael H Picard
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.251

3.  Robotic mitral valve surgery: Additive benefits without additive cost.

Authors:  Carol W Chen; Pavan Atluri
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 5.209

4.  Defining the cost of care for lobectomy and segmentectomy: a comparison of open, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and robotic approaches.

Authors:  Shaun A Deen; Jennifer L Wilson; Candice L Wilshire; Eric Vallières; Alexander S Farivar; Ralph W Aye; Robson E Ely; Brian E Louie
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Evaluation of robotic cardiac surgery simulation training: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Matthew Valdis; Michael W A Chu; Christopher Schlachta; Bob Kiaii
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2016-02-13       Impact factor: 5.209

6.  Undoing the gaps in quality, cost, and value.

Authors:  Thomas A D'Amico
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  Hospital cost and clinical effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic and open lobectomy: A propensity score-weighted comparison.

Authors:  Peter J Kneuertz; Emily Singer; Desmond M D'Souza; Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul; Susan D Moffatt-Bruce; Robert E Merritt
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 5.209

8.  Comparing robot-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy with conventional video-assisted thoracic surgical lobectomy and wedge resection: results from a multihospital database (Premier).

Authors:  Scott J Swanson; Daniel L Miller; Robert Joseph McKenna; John Howington; M Blair Marshall; Andrew C Yoo; Matthew Moore; Candace L Gunnarsson; Bryan F Meyers
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 5.209

9.  Thoracoscopic Surgery Versus Thoracotomy for Lung Cancer: Short-Term Outcomes of a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Hao Long; Qunyou Tan; Qingquan Luo; Zheng Wang; Gening Jiang; Dongrong Situ; Yongbin Lin; Xiaodong Su; Qing Liu; Tiehua Rong
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Huirong Xu; Jianning Li; Yanlai Sun; Zengjun Li; Yanan Zhen; Bin Wang; Zhongfa Xu
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 2.754

View more
  1 in total

1.  Total Thoracoscopic versus Robotic Surgery for Repair of Atrial Septum Defect: A Propensity Matching Score Analysis.

Authors:  Yanyi Liu; Zhuang Liu; Xin Li; Ning Li; Ruirui Kong; Yiyao Jiang; Shenglin Ge; Chengxin Zhang
Journal:  Emerg Med Int       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 1.621

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.