[Repair of posterior mitral valve prolapsed: comparative study of three different approaches]
- PMID: 22943997
[Repair of posterior mitral valve prolapsed: comparative study of three different approaches]
Abstract
Objective: To compared outcomes of robotic mitral valve repair with those of standard sternotomy, and right anterolateral thoracotomy.
Method: From August 2010 to July 2011, 70 patients with degenerative mitral valve disease and posterior leaflet prolapsed scheduled for elective isolated mitral valve repair were prospectively nonrandomized to undergo mitral valve operation by standard sternotomy (n = 30), right anterolateral thoracotomy (n = 30), or a robotic approach (n = 10). There were 49 male and 21 female patients, aging from 16 to 70 years with a mean of 53.4 years. Outcomes of the three groups were compared.
Results: Mitral valve repair was achieved in all patients except 1 patient in the standard group. There were no in-hospital deaths. The median operation time [(300 ± 41) min, (184 ± 20) min and (169 ± 22) min, F = 112.5, P < 0.01], cardiopulmonary bypass time [(139 ± 26) min, (82 ± 20) min and (69 ± 23) min, F = 36.8, P < 0.01], aortic cross-clamping time [(93 ± 23) min, (47 ± 10) min and (38 ± 8) min, F = 75.0, P < 0.01] were longer for robotic than standard sternotomy and right anterolateral thoracotomy. The robotic group had shortest time of mechanical ventilation time [(4.9 ± 2.1) h, (5.3 ± 4.5) h and (14.1 ± 10.2) h, F = 13.2, P < 0.01], ICU time [(15.1 ± 2.1) h, (16.4 ± 5.4) h and (28.7 ± 16.1) h, F = 11.6, P < 0.01], postoperative hospital stay time [(4.6 ± 1.0) d, (5.7 ± 1.7) d and (8.8 ± 5.1) d, F = 8.0, P < 0.01] with the lowest of drainage [(192 ± 200) ml, (215 ± 163) ml and (405 ± 239) ml, F = 7.1, P < 0.01] and ratio of the patients needed blood transfusion (0, 20.0% and 66.7%, χ(2) = 22.7, P < 0.01). Patients were followed up 6 to 17 months, with 100% completed. No patients died during follow-ups, and no moderate or more mitral regurgitation was observed. The robotic group had the shortest time of return to normal activities compared with the other two groups [(2.4 ± 0.7) weeks, (4.2 ± 1.2) weeks and (8.2 ± 1.8) weeks, F = 83.0, P < 0.01].
Conclusion: This study shows mitral valve repair via the right anterolateral thoracotomy and a robotic approach is safe and feasible, with good cosmetic results and rapid postoperative recovery, and is worthy of clinical selective application.
Similar articles
-
Robotic minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction yields less blood product transfusion and shorter length of stay.Surgery. 2006 Aug;140(2):263-7. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2006.05.003. Surgery. 2006. PMID: 16904978
-
Robotic mitral valve repair for all prolapse subsets using techniques identical to open valvuloplasty: establishing the benchmark against which percutaneous interventions should be judged.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011 Nov;142(5):970-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.07.027. Epub 2011 Sep 10. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011. PMID: 21911231
-
Mitral valve repair robotic versus sternotomy.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006 Mar;29(3):362-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.12.004. Epub 2006 Jan 19. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006. PMID: 16423535
-
Robotic mitral valve repair.J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2015 Jul-Aug;30(4):325-31. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000157. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2015. PMID: 24763355 Review.
-
Minimally invasive robotic mitral valve surgery.Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011 Jan;8(1):115-20. doi: 10.1586/erd.10.66. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2011. PMID: 21158546 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical