Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization reduces postoperative morbidity compared with results from conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass

Review of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), defined broadly as surgical revascularization via any sternotomy-sparing approach. Here, we provide an overview of minimally invasive CABG targeted to cardiologists, cardiac surgeons and other clinicians involved in the care of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

A narrative review of the literature on minimally invasive CABG was performed.

RESULTS

Minimally invasive CABG was first described over 20 years ago, yet uptake has been slow and available data are limited. The most common iteration of minimally invasive CABG is a single-vessel CABG (left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery) performed without the cardiopulmonary bypass machine via mini-thoracotomy. However, in patients with multivessel CAD, other options include minimally invasive multivessel CABG and hybrid revascularization (minimally invasive CABG with percutaneous coronary intervention). Patient selection and preoperative planning are paramount. Observational studies and small randomized controlled trials demonstrate that minimally invasive CABG is associated with reduced rates of blood transfusion, surgical site infections, lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stays, and time to return to full activity with promising late outcomes. Finally, we describe future areas for growth, including ongoing clinical trials, gaps in evidence and pragmatic considerations for surgeons interested in starting a minimally invasive CABG programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive CABG can expand the armamentarium of revascularization techniques available for the ageing and increasingly complex population of patients with CAD.

Outcomes of Robotic MIDCAB With Hybrid PCI for Multivessel Coronary Disease Involving the Left Main: Results of 62 Cases

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization is a clinical strategy that uses a combination of surgical revascularization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data on the hybrid approach for coronary artery disease involving the left main (LM) are scarce. We analyzed our cohort of hybrid coronary revascularizations with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) using robotic left internal mammary artery harvesting and PCI for multivessel disease with and without LM involvement.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and December 2020, 105 patients consecutively underwent robotic MIDCAB. Of those, 62 patients (59.1%) had multivessel coronary artery disease and underwent revascularization via the hybrid approach using robotic MIDCAB and PCI. Patients were then stratified into 2 groups for comparison: LM disease (n = 22, 35.5%) and non-LM disease (n = 40, 64.5%).

RESULTS

The SYNTAX scores were significantly lower in the non-LM group compared with the LM group (19.06 ± 6.41 vs 24.86 ± 7.04, P = 0.002). There were no other significant differences in demographics between the groups. There were no 30-day mortalities in either group. Freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 5 years was 72.2% in the non-LM group and 61.0% in the LM group (P = 0.89). There were no significant differences in 5-year overall survival (94.1% vs 83.3%, P = 0.074) or freedom from coronary reintervention (83.4% vs 75.4%, P = 0.699).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid robotic MIDCAB for patients with and without LM disease can be performed with acceptable results in selected patients. However, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding safety and efficacy compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting.

Clinical outcomes of different revascularization approaches for patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As surgical techniques continue to evolve, the optimal approach for revascularizing multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a matter of ongoing debate. Accordingly, our objective was to compare and contrast various surgical techniques utilized in the management of multi-vessel CAD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to May 2022. Random-effects network meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome; target vessel revascularization (TVR), and secondary outcomes; mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, postoperative myocardial infarction, new-onset atrial fibrillation, stroke, new-onset dialysis, in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a stent, off-pump coronary bypass graft, on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (ONCABG), hybrid coronary revascularization, minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass, or robot-assisted coronary artery bypass (RCAB) surgeries.

RESULTS

A total of 8841 patients were included from 23 studies. The analysis showed that ONCABG had the highest freedom from TVR, with a mean (SD) absolute risk of 0.027 (0.029); although ONCABG was found to be superior to all other methods, it was only significantly better than first-generation stent PCI. While RCAB did not demonstrate significant superiority over other treatments, it showed a greater probability of preventing postoperative complications. Notably, no significant heterogeneity was calculated for any of the reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ONCABG shows a better rank probability compared to all other techniques for preventing TVR, while RCAB offers greater freedom from most postoperative complications. However, given the absence of randomized controlled trials, these results should be interpreted with caution.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions

Myocardial revascularization in coronary artery disease via percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery effectively relieves symptoms, significantly improves prognosis and quality of life when combined with guideline-directed medical therapy. Hybrid coronary revascularization is a promising alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG in selected patients and is defined as a planned and/or intended combination of consecutive CABG surgery using at least 1 internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending (LAD), and catheter-based coronary intervention to the non-LAD vessels for the treatment of multivessel disease. The main indications for hybrid coronary revascularization are (i) to achieve complete revascularization in patients who cannot undergo conventional CABG, (ii) to treat patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease with a non-LAD vessel as the culprit lesion that needs revascularization and (iii) in highly select patients with multivessel disease with complex LAD lesions and simple percutaneous coronary intervention targets for all other vessels. Hybrid coronary revascularization patients receive a left internal mammary artery graft to the LAD artery through a minimal incision along with percutaneous coronary intervention to the remaining diseased coronary vessels using latest generation drug-eluting stents. A collaborative environment with a dedicated heart team is the optimal platform to perform such interventions, which aim to improve the quality and outcome of myocardial revascularization. This position paper analyses the rationale of hybrid coronary revascularization and the currently available evidence on the various techniques and delves into the sequence of the interventions and pharmacological management during and after the procedure.

The Current State of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive surgical approach with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Despite decades of use, widespread acceptance has been limited. In this review, we conduct a comparative assessment of HCR in relation to traditional coronary artery bypass graft surgery and multivessel PCI. Although large-scale randomized data are still lacking, numerous studies have demonstrated that HCR may offer benefits regarding resource utilization and short-term morbidity while delivering comparable mid- and long-term survival compared with traditional bypass surgery. Compared with PCI, HCR may offer similar periprocedural morbidity while mitigating the need for repeat revascularization by providing a surgical arterial bypass graft to the left anterior descending artery.

Perioperative Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Management in Liver Transplant Recipients: A Review of the Literature Merging Guidelines and Interventions

Liver transplantation (LT) is the second most performed solid organ transplant. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a critical consideration for LT candidacy, particularly in patients with known CAD or risk factors, including metabolic dysfunction associated with steatotic liver disease. The presence of severe CAD may exclude patients from LT; therefore, precise preoperative evaluation and interventions are necessary to achieve transplant candidacy. Cardiovascular complications represent the earliest nongraft-related cause of death post-transplantation. Timely intervention to reduce cardiovascular events depends on adequate CAD screening. Coronary disease screening in end-stage liver disease is challenging because standard noninvasive CAD screening tests have low sensitivity due to hyperdynamic state and vasodilatation. As a result, there is overuse of invasive coronary angiography to exclude severe CAD. Coronary artery calcium scoring using a computed tomography scan is a tool for the prediction of cardiovascular events, and can be used to achieve risk stratification in LT candidates. Recent literature shows that qualitative assessment on both noncontrast- and contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography can be used instead of calcium score to assess the presence of coronary calcium. With increasing prevalence, protocols to address CAD in LT candidates must be reconsidered. Percutaneous coronary intervention could allow a shorter duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy in simple lesions, with safer perioperative outcomes. Hybrid coronary revascularization is an option for high-risk LT candidates with multivessel disease nonamenable to percutaneous coronary intervention. The objective of this review is to evaluate existing methods for preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification, and to describe interventions before surgery to optimize patient outcomes and reduce cardiovascular event risk.

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD): A meta-analysis of 14 studies comprising 4226 patients

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD).

BACKGROUND

HCR has emerged as an alternative to CABG in patients with MVCAD. Through minimally invasive surgical techniques, HCR carries the potential for faster recovery postoperatively, fewer complications, and lower utilization of resources.

METHODS

Systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to December 2021 and studies comparing HCR with CABG in the treatment of MVCAD were included in this meta-analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were incidence of 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (12 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) comprising 4226 patients were included. The rates of 5-year mortality (odds ratios [OR]: 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.62; I²  = 83.0%) and long-term MACCE (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.47-2.01; I²  = 74.7%) were comparable between HCR and CABG groups. HCR was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of perioperative blood transfusion (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.25-0.51; I²  = 55.9%), shorter mean hospital stay (weighted mean difference: -2.04; 95% CI: -2.60 to -1.47; I²  = 54%), and risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.23-0.88; p = 0.02). CABG demonstrated a lower likelihood of requiring long-term repeat revascularization (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.03-2.20; I²  = 18%) over a follow-up duration of 29.14 ± 21.75 months.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that HCR is feasible and safe for the treatment of MVCAD. However, benefits of HCR should be carefully weighed against the increased long-term risk of repeat-revascularization when selecting patients, and further studies evaluating differences in long-term mortality between HCR and CABG are required.

Return to work after coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement surgery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and aortic valve replacement surgery are essential treatment options for people suffering from angina pectoris or aortic valve disease. Surgery aims to prolong life expectancy, improve quality of life, and facilitate participation in society for the individuals afflicted. The aim of this review was to explore the literature on work participation in patients following coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement surgery, and to identify demographic and clinical characteristics associated with returning to work.

METHODS

A scoping review framework of Arksey and O'Malley was chosen. Four electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies in English, Swedish, Danish or Norwegian between January 1988 and January 2020. A blinded selection of articles was performed. The data were then charted and summarized by descriptive numerical analyses and categorized into themes.

RESULTS

Forty-five out of 432 articles were included in the final full-text analysis. Absence from work following coronary artery bypass graft grafting or aortic valve replacement surgery lasted on average 30 weeks, whereas 34% of the patients never returned to work. Being female, suffering from pre-existing depression, having limited secondary education, or low income were associated with decreased return to work rates. Previous employment was a decisive factor for returning to work after surgery. Data on return to work after aortic valve replacement were scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of patients never return to work following coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve surgery, and the time interval until work return is longer than expected. Failure to resume work represents a threat to the patients' finances and quality of life. Nurses are in a unique position to assess work-related issues and have an active part in the multi-disciplinary facilitation of tailored occupational counselling after cardiac surgery.

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are widely used in the treatment of coronary heart disease, but the best revascularization method for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients is still controversial. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), together with CABG and PCI, have been proved to be feasible methods, but the long-term effect of HCR is not as clear as CABG.

METHOD

By October 2020, we retrieved articles from PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases. The main results are based on major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE).

RESULT

A total of 18 articles (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes of MACCE in the HCR group at perioperative, short-term (30 days to 1 year), medium-term (1 year to 5 years) and long-term (5 years and above) follow-up period were similar to those in the CABG group. The mortality rates of patients in perioperative, short-term and medium-term follow-up were similar to those in the CABG group, but lower than that in the CABG group at long-term follow-up (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.69, p = 0.002). The revascularization rate was higher in the HCR group during the perioperative period (OR = 3.50, 95% CI 2.07-5.94, p < 0.001), short-term (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.62-6.64, p < 0.001) and mid-term follow-up (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.64-4.92, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results reveal that HCR is a safe and therapeutically effective alternative in treatments for MVD patients. It has not only less short-term adverse effect, but also better long-term effect, especially in death.

Hybrid revascularization vs. coronary bypass for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery bypass graft is the mainstay of treatment for multivessel coronary artery disease and is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention. Combined approaches such as hybrid coronary revascularization integrate coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention during the same procedure or weeks apart. These attempt to improve surgical morbidity and long-term outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Per PRISMA criteria, a systematic review of keywords "Hybrid Revascularization," "Hybrid Coronary Revascularization," "Surgical," "Surgery," "Treatment," "CABG," "HCR" and "PCI" was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS. Studies comparing this technique's performance on either single or two-stage approach against traditional multiple vessel coronary artery bypass grafting were screened and analyzed for our review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-two studies totaling 6981 participants were ultimately included for analysis. Mean differences in operative time, bleeding, ventilator time and length of stay were significantly lower in the hybrid coronary revascularization group. Odds ratios in transfusions and in-hospital myocardial infarction were also lower in the hybrid coronary revascularization group. Results for in-hospital and all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke, reintervention, and complete revascularization were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows hybrid coronary revascularization is a feasible alternative to traditional coronary artery bypass grafting. Short-and long-term outcomes including mortality, MACE, and postoperative morbidity are similar between both groups, while hybrid approaches are associated with decreased perioperative morbidity.

Hybrid coronary revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Aim: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) integrates coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous intervention in a planned revascularization strategy. This systematic review summarizes the state of this art of this technique. Methods: Major databases searched until October 2021. Results: The available literature on HCR includes three randomized trials, ten meta-analysis and 27 retrospective studies. The greatest benefits are observed in patients with low-to-intermediate risk and less complex coronary anatomy; highly complex disease and the presence of risk factors favored conventional CABG in terms of adverse events and survival. Conclusion: HCR is an interesting approach for multivessel CAD but should not be considered a 'one-size-fits-all' procedure. Further studies will specify the subset of patients likely to benefit most from this hybrid approach.

One-Stop Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Background: Data on one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are limited. This study aimed to compare the early and midterm outcomes of one-stop HCR with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

Methods: From April 2018 to May 2021, 752 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent isolated one-stop HCR or OPCAB were retrospectively included in this analysis. After exclusion and propensity score matching, 151 patients who underwent HCR were matched with 151 patients who underwent OPCAB. The primary endpoints were midterm major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after the procedure. The secondary endpoints were in-hospital complications and outcomes.

Results: The preprocedural characteristics were well balanced between the two groups after matching. The HCR group was associated with a lower rate of perioperative transfusion (23.8 vs. 53.0%, p < 0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) (5.3 vs. 15.2%, p = 0.004), shorter time of mechanical ventilation (h) [15 (16, 17) vs. 17 (16, 20), p < 0.001], and shorter length of stay (LOS) in the hospital (days) [19 (16, 24) vs. 22 (18, 27), p = 0.001]. Cumulated MACCE rates were similar between the two groups (15.9 vs. 14.0%, p = 0.59) during a median follow-up of 20 months.

Conclusions: One-stop HCR is safe and efficacious with less invasiveness and faster postoperative recovery in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up are warranted to confirm these findings.

Is hybrid coronary revascularization really beneficial in the long term?

 

OBJECTIVES

This analysis aimed to compare both short- and long-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with different techniques and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

Twenty-three studies were included, covering 10 468 different patients, among whom 2403 patients underwent HCR with either simultaneous or staged method and 8065 patients underwent CABG.

RESULTS

Compared with CABG, HCR had a statistically significant lower risk of stroke [odds ratio (OR) = 0.55, P = 0.049], major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR = 0.69, P = 0.024) and blood transfusion (BT) (OR = 0.39, P < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were detected in mortality, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. A network meta-analysis showed that simultaneous HCR had significantly better outcomes in stroke (OR = 0.24, P = 0.01) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR = 0.29, P < 0.001), and staged HCR had a significantly better outcome in BT (OR = 0.31, P < 0.001). According to the frequentist statistic results, simultaneous HCR had the highest probability of being the best treatment in terms of mortality (84%), stroke (97%), myocardial infarction (88%) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (99%), whereas staged HCR had the highest probability of being the best in postoperative repeat revascularization (59%) and BT (83%). However, long-term results showed no significant difference between the HCR and CABG techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

HCR appears to be a feasible option for multivessel coronary artery disease patients. Compared to traditional CABG, HCR had lower risk of adverse events in the short term, but in the long term, survival rate and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rate were similar between groups.

A Practical Approach to Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Combined surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization, ie, hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) consists of surgical left internal mammary artery (LIMA) bypass to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and percutaneous revascularization of other diseased coronary arteries. Developed as a 1-stage procedure, HCR has not been widely adopted by the cardiovascular community. The recommended minimally invasive approach through a small left thoracotomy incision is technically demanding, and same-day percutaneous revascularization requires a hybrid operating room that is not available in most hospitals. In this review, we consider present HCR protocols, barriers to widespread adoption of HCR, and we give special attention to the surgical approach for the LIMA graft to the LAD and the timing of percutaneous revascularization. We conclude that grafting the LIMA to the LAD through a median sternotomy approach and delaying the percutaneous revascularization may facilitate the widespread use of HCR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and a low to intermediate Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score.

Hybrid coronary revascularization vs. percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD diseased coronary arteries. It is associated with shorter hospital lengths of stay and recovery times than conventional coronary artery bypass surgery, but there is little information comparing it to isolated PCI for multivessel disease. Our objective is to compare long-term outcomes of HCR and PCI for patients with multivessel disease.

METHODS

This cohort study used data from New York's cardiac surgery and PCI registries in 2010-2016 to examine mortality and repeat revascularization rates for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent HCR and PCI. Cox proportional hazards methods were used to reduce selection bias. Patients were followed for a median of four years.

RESULTS

There was a total of 335 HCR patients (1.2%) and 25,557 PCI patients (98.8%) after exclusions. There was no difference in 6-year risk adjusted survival between HCR and PCI patients (83.17% vs. 81.65%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.67-1.20). However, HCR patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization in the LAD artery (91.13% vs. 83.59%, aHR = 0.51 (95% CI: 0.34-0.77)).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease, HCR is rarely performed. There are no differences in mortality rates after four years, but HCR is associated with lower repeat revascularization rates in the LAD artery, presumably due to better longevity in left arterial mammary grafts.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Utilization and Comparative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) treats multivessel coronary artery disease by combining a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left anterior descending diseased coronary arteries. The objective of this study is to compare HCR and conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery medium-term outcomes.

METHODS

Data from multivessel disease patients in New York's cardiac surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention registries in 2010 to 2016 were used to compare mortality and repeat revascularization rates for HCR and conventional CABG after using propensity matching to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

There was a total of 303 HCR (0.80%) patients and 37 556 conventional CABG patients after exclusions. After propensity matching, the respective median follow-up times were 3.72 years and 3.76 years. There was no difference between HCR and conventional CABG in survival at 6 years (80.9% versus 85.8%%, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [0.90-2.31]), but HCR had higher mortality excluding deaths during the first year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88 [1.10-3.23]). Conventional CABG patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization at 6 years than HCR patients (88.2% versus 76.6%; hazard ratio, 2.22 [1.44-3.42]).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR is rarely performed for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. HCR and conventional CABG had no different 6-year mortality rates, but HCR had higher mortality after 1 year and higher rates of subsequent revascularization that were caused by both the need for repeat revascularization in the left anterior descending artery where minimally invasive CABG was performed, and in the coronary arteries where percutaneous coronary intervention was performed. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Simultaneous transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal and coronary artery bypass grafting: A novel hybrid technique

Optimal management of concomitant coronary artery disease and carotid artery stenosis remains unknown. Current treatment strategies for patients with significant dual disease burden include simultaneous carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or staged carotid endarterectomy and CABG. Herein we present the case of a patient with severe coronary artery disease and carotid artery stenosis and discuss a novel hybrid approach to management of concomitant coronary and carotid disease using transcarotid artery revascularization with flow reversal before CABG.

One-year cost-effectiveness and safety of simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and safety of simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization (sHCR) compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in elective patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

METHODS

Cost-utility analysis of a prospective cohort follow-up study comparing per protocol 50 sHCR patients to 50 contemporaneous matched patients undergoing CABG. Resource utilization data and health-related quality of life were collected prospectively, and the cumulative 1-year costs were assessed from the Danish health sector perspective. Effectiveness was measured by quality-adjusted life years using EuroQol-5D. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses using bootstrapping were conducted. Secondary safety measures including early clinical outcomes and freedom from major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year were assessed.

RESULTS

The clinical trial was discontinued prematurely due to safety reasons after inclusion of 50 patients (24 sHCR; 26 CABG), as the chest tube output and the risk of postoperative pleural effusions requiring thoracocentesis were significantly increased following sHCR compared with CABG. Based on 48 patients available for 1-year follow-up, both treatment strategies were similarly effective (quality-adjusted life year difference between the groups -0.019), with a net cost difference in favour of conventional CABG estimated to be €2173 per patient. Exclusion of 1 outlier patient with chronic renal failure and deep sternal wound infection in the sHCR group resulted in an equalization of the total 1-year costs.

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, sHCR was less cost-effective than conventional CABG and associated with higher chest tube output and a higher risk of postoperative pleural effusions requiring thoracocentesis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01496664.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of two-vessel coronary artery disease with proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis

Background

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of two-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) including proximal LAD stenosis.

Methods

From January 2009 to December 2016, 52 patients of two-vessel CAD including proximal LAD stenosis underwent HCR at Rui Jin Hospital. Using propensity score methodology, these patients were matched with those in the OPCAB and PCI cohorts. The primary endpoint during follow-up was main adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

Results

The intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and the hospital LOS were shorter in the HCR group than in the OPCAB group (ICU LOS: P<0.001; hospital LOS: P=0.027). The mean follow-up time was 59 months (interquartile range, 42 to 79 months). The 8-year freedom from MACCE of the HCR group was higher than that of the PCI group (P=0.008), but similar to that of the OPCAB group (P=0.893).

Conclusions

HCR provides favorable outcomes for selected patients with two-vessel CAD including proximal LAD stenosis.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus percutaneous strategies in left main stenosis: a propensity match study

AIMS

Hybrid revascularization (HCR) has been recently proposed as an alternative strategy in multivessel coronary disease, particularly in patients with high SYNTAX scores and risk scores. The objective of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of HCR versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) drug-eluting stenting in left main treatment.

METHODS

A series of 198 consecutive patients with left main stenosis have been treated. HCR, was performed in 77 patients (G1) whereas 121 patients (G2) received PCI on left main. An adjusted analysis using inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed. Primary outcomes include: 30-day mortality, postoperative acute myocardial infarction, 18 months' MACCEs: cardiac death, stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), repeated target vessel revascularization (TVR).

RESULTS

SYNTAX score was 29.5 ± 6.9 in G1 and 29.1 ± 6.5 in G2 (P = 0.529). In G2, three patients (2.7%) died because of cardiogenic shock; no deaths occurred in G1 (P = 0.603). No major complications were reported in G1 and there was no mortality at 18 months' follow-up in both groups. Survival freedom from MACCEs at 18 months' follow-up was significantly higher in G1 (G1: 93.3 ± 4.6% versus G2: 72.3 ± 6.3; P = 0.001) mostly because of the higher freedom from TVR (G1: 93.3 ± 4.6% versus G2: 75.5 ± 5.6; P = 0.002). At Cox regression analysis, PCI was an independent predictor of MACCEs and TVR (hazard ratio 3.9, CI 1.36-9.6; P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

PCI in patients with left main and multivessel disease is a viable strategy, with a good outcome. HCR, demonstrated a lower incidence of cardiac adverse events such as AMI and TVR. Future comparative studies will be helpful to identify the optimal patient population for HCR.

Hybrid myocardial revascularization

Background

In patients with advanced coronary artery disease (CAD), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with improved long-term outcomes while percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with lower periprocedural complications. A new approach has emerged in the last decade that attempts to reap the benefits of bypass surgery and stenting while minimizing the shortcomings of each approach, hybrid myocardial revascularization (HMR).Three strategies for timing of the hybrid revascularization exists, each with their own inherent advantages and shortcomings: (1) CABG followed by PCI, (2) PCI followed by CABG, or (3) simultaneous CABG + PCI in a hybrid suite.

Studies

The results of the first randomized control trial comparing HMR (CABG first) and standard CABG, POL-MIDES (Prospective Randomized PilOt Study EvaLuating the Safety and Efficacy of Hybrid Revascularization in MultIvessel Coronary Artery DisEaSe), show HMR was feasible for 93.9% of patients whereas conversion to standard CABG was required for 6.1%. At 1 year, both groups had similar all-cause mortality (CABG 2.9% vs. HMR 2%) and major adverse clinical event (MACE)-free survival rates (CABG 92.2% vs. HMR 89.8%). Results of observational and comparative studies show that minimally invasive HMR procedures in patients with multivessel CAD carry minimal perioperative mortality risk and low morbidity and do not increase the risk of postoperative bleeding. The advantage they offer in comparison to classical surgical revascularization is indeed faster rehabilitation and patient's return to normal life.

Conclusion

Hybrid myocardial revascularization has been developed as a promising technique for the treatment of high-risk patients with CAD. Hybrid revascularization using minimally invasive surgical techniques combined with PCI offers to a part of patients an advantage of optimal revascularization of the most important artery of the heart, together with adequate myocardial revascularization in a relatively delicate way. Indeed, to patients with high operative risk of standard surgery, it offers an alternative which should be considered carefully.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive grafting of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention has become a viable option for treating coronary artery disease. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a range of clinical outcomes and hospital costs.

METHODS

To identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in various databases. The key search terms included "hybrid revascularization" AND "coronary artery bypass grafting" OR "HCR" OR "CABG." This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating the need for blood transfusion, hospital costs, ventilation time, hospital stay, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, renal failure, operation duration, and ICU stay.

RESULTS

The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower for HCR: odds ratio 0.38 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.31-0.46, P < .00001) as was the hospital stay: mean difference (MD) -1.48 days (95% CI, -2.61 to -0.36, P = 0.01) and the ventilation time: MD -8.99 hours (95% CI, -15.85 to -2.13, P = .01). On the contrary, hospital costs were more expensive for HCR: MD $3970 (95% CI, 2570-5370, P < .00001). All other comparisons were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short-term, HCR is as safe as conventional CABG and may offer certain benefits such as a lower requirement for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stays. However, HCR is more expensive than conventional CABG.

Short-Term and Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes Following Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) is one of the standard treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD) while hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents an evolving revascularization strategy. However, the difference in outcomes between them remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the short-term and mid-term outcomes of HCR versus OPCAB for the treatment of multivessel or left main CAD.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to identify related studies and a routine meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 6121 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in short-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.30-1.03, p = 0.06) or mortality (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.17-1.48, p = 0.22). HCR required less ventilator time (SMD: -0.36, 95% CI: -0.55- -0.16, p < 0.001), ICU stay (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 - -0.13, p < 0.01), hospital stay (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.50- -0.07, p < 0.05) and blood transfusion rate (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49-0.67, p < 0.001), but needed more operation time (SMD: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.54-2.05, p < 0.001) and hospitalization costs (SMD: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.45-1.66, p < 0.001). The HCR group had lower mid-term MACCE rate (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26-0.92, p < 0.05) but higher rate in mid-term target vessel revascularization (TVR, RR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.32-3.67, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR had similar short-term mortality and morbidity comparing to OPCAB. HCR decreased the ventilator time, ICU stay, hospital stay, blood transfusion rate and increased operation time and hospitalization costs. HCR has a lower mid-term MACCE rate while OPCAB shows better in mid-term TVR.

A Comparison of Inflammatory Responses Between Robotically Enhanced Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Implications for Hybrid Revascularization

OBJECTIVE

The inflammatory response elicited by robotically enhanced coronary artery bypass grafting (r-CABG) has not been well described. When r-CABG is performed as part of hybrid coronary revascularization, the inflammatory milieu and the timing of percutaneous coronary intervention may affect the stent patency negatively in the short and long term. The goal of this study was to describe the extent and time course of cytokine release after r-CABG compared with conventional CABG (c-CABG) and to elucidate the optimal timing for r-CABG in the setting of hybrid coronary revascularization for a future study.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care center in a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised patients scheduled to undergo r-CABG or c-CABG from October 2012 to November 2014.

INTERVENTIONS

Cytokine levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10; tumor necrosis factor-α; and C-reactive protein (CRP) were measured at the following time points: preprocedure; at the end of the procedure; and at 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours after the procedure.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients undergoing r-CABG and 10 patients undergoing c-CABG were enrolled. The levels of cytokines after r-CABG and c-CABG were compared using the mixed-effect linear regression model for longitudinal data. Cytokine release in the r-CABG group was comparatively less for IL-6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor, and CRP levels. They all trended toward the baseline by the 48th hour in both groups, except CRP levels, which reached their peak at 48 hours in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The inflammatory response to r-CABG was blunted compared with that of c-CABG. The high CRP levels on the second postoperative day after r-CABG were a cause for concern in regard to percutaneous coronary intervention performed at that time period, but additional studies are necessary.

Mid-term follow-up outcomes of 2-staged hybrid coronary revascularization compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease

INTRODUCTION

Two-staged hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a novel procedure in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, few studies are available on the mid-term or long-term outcomes of this 2-staged procedure as compared to off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB).

AIM

To compare in-hospital and mid-term follow-up outcomes of 2-staged HCR with OPCAB in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present retrospective study analyzed the data from 73 patients who underwent the 2-staged HCR (HCR group) during 2012-2014 at the heart center. Three hundred and eighty-three patients who underwent conventional OPCAB by the same surgeon were selected for the comparative analysis performed on in-hospital and mid-term follow-up outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the preoperative outcome between the two groups. The HCR group had a shorter operation duration (152.9 ±43.8 vs. 262.6 ±51.8 min, p < 0.05), less bleeding (558.6 ±441.3 vs. 1035.5 ±613.3 ml, p < 0.05), shorter mechanical ventilation (9.4 ±7.4 vs. 19.0 ±18.3 h, p < 0.05), and less blood transfusion (12 (16.4%) vs. 200 (52.2%), p < 0.05). The mean follow-up duration was 25.0 ±9.6 months in the HCR group and 22.8 ±10.6 months in the OPCAB group. The incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was similar in both groups (4 (5.5%) vs. 10 (2.8%), p = 0.408). The estimated 3-year survival was similar in both groups (log-rank χ2 = 1.041, p = 0.308).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-staged HCR is a safe and effective surgical procedure and may offer similar mid-term follow-up outcomes to OPCAB.

The Impact of Robotic Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on In-Hospital Narcotic Use: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare narcotic use in the perioperative hospital stay as a measure of pain in patients undergoing robotic versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

Propensity score matching of patients undergoing robotically assisted CABG and conventional CABG over a period of 5 years was performed. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify the total amount of narcotics used by both groups calculated as morphine equivalent dosing (MED).

RESULTS

From 2007 to 2012, 154 patients underwent robotic CABG, and 1660 underwent conventional CABG. Propensity matching resulted in 142 patients in each group. Patients undergoing robotic CABG received less blood transfusion, were more frequently extubated in the operating room, and had a shorter length of stay. The robotic group had a lower MED than the conventional group as defined by the primary end point [181 (11) vs 251 (8)]. If intraoperative narcotic use was eliminated, there was no difference in MED from postoperative days 0 to 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing robotic CABG use fewer narcotics over the first three hospital days than patients undergoing conventional CABG. The surrogate of narcotics use for postoperative pain shows that the minithoracotomy of robotic CABG may result in either less or equivalent pain than the sternotomy of conventional CABG.

Long-term results after robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotically-assisted coronary bypass grafting (CABG) was introduced in 1998 and dedicated centers have continuously applied and developed this minimally invasive method of coronary bypass surgery. While short-term results are relatively well published, data on long-term outcome are limited. In this literature review, we assessed the outcomes after robotic CABG following the first postoperative year.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for articles containing the terms "robotic" or "robotically assisted" and "coronary bypass". A total of 11 papers contained long-term results. We specifically investigated survival, graft patency, freedom from angina and re-intervention, as well as freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

RESULTS

Five-year survival after robotic CABG was consistently consistently greater than 90% and graft patency between 3 and 5 years was reported to be above 90%. Fifteen percent to 26% of patients re-experienced angina at 3 to 5 years postoperatively. Long-term freedom from re-intervention reached the range and the 5-year freedom from MACCE rate was approximately 75%.

CONCLUSIONS

According to data in the literature, long-term results after CABG carried out with the assistance of a surgical robot appear to be in line with results achieved after conventional CABG.

Current state and future direction of hybrid coronary revascularization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The most optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease is a subject of ongoing debate. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) aims to combine the advantages of both percutaneous and surgical revascularization in a single strategy. This review provides a timely overview of the use, practice patterns, clinical outcomes and future perspectives of HCR.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of technological advances in stent technology and minimal invasive surgical techniques have enabled the use of HCR, in which the left internal mammary artery is grafted to the left anterior descending artery followed or preceded by percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending artery lesions. Currently, HCR is reserved for a highly selected patient population, representing less than 1% of the total coronary artery bypass grafting volume in the United States. Clinical outcomes from observational studies as well as a randomized feasibility trial show encouraging results.

SUMMARY

HCR shows promising clinical results in patients with multivessel disease and/or left main involvement. Engagement from interventional and surgical communities, and adequate patient selection based on local expertise, and data from randomized controlled trials are needed to establish a permanent role in the armamentarium for coronary revascularization.

Total arterial grafting is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to conventional myocardial revascularization at 10 years follow-up

The use of arterial conduits is associated with incremental benefits when compared to conventional CABG surgery, albeit there is a paucity of data regarding the long-term outcomes of either techniques. Among 973 consecutive patients undergoing CABG, a propensity-match study was performed to compare total arterial revascularization technique (G1) with a conventional approach (LITA on LAD plus additional SVGs, G2). The study population was propensity-matched based on preoperative characteristics (age, sex, risk factors). Mean number of grafted vessels (G1 = 2.39 ± 0.55 vs G2 = 2.37 ± 0.7; p = 0.79) and aortic cross-clamp time (G1 = 36 ± 6 vs G2 = 35 ± 6 min; p = 0.31) were similar while CPB time was significantly longer in Group 2 (G1 = 50 ± 7 vs G2 = 70 ± 8 min; p = 0.03). Hospital mortality (G1 = 0.6 % vs G2 = 1.3 %; p = 0.41) and overall incidence of postoperative complications were also comparable. Cox regression analysis depicted conventional CABG as an independent predictor for MACCEs (HR = 4.53, CI 95 % = 2-10.28; p < 0.001). Median follow-up time was 112 months: actuarial survival free from cardiac death (G1 = 100 % vs G2 = 95 ± 2.1 %; p = 0.046) and MACCEs (G1 = 97.3 ± 1.5 % vs G2 = 79.4 ± 3.8 %; p < 0.001) was significantly improved in patients undergoing total arterial grafting. Total arterial myocardial revascularization is associated with significantly improved outcomes at 10 years follow-up in terms of cardiac-related mortality and overall event-free survival.

Short-term clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for the treatment of multivessel or left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

Background

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) are both feasible, less invasive techniques for coronary revascularization. Although both techniques utilize the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft, HCR uses drug-eluting stents instead of saphenous vein bypass. It remains unclear whether HCR is equal to, better or worse than OPCABG.

Methods and results

A meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model. Seven observational studies were included. There was no significant difference either in in-hospital mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13–2.59, P=0.47] or in the MACCE rate (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24–1.64, P=0.34) between the HCR group and the OPCABG group. A significant difference was observed between the two groups in the length of hospitalization (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.13–0.97, P=0.01), length of ICU stay (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.10–0.80, P<0.05), intubation time (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13–0.84, P<0.01), need for red blood transfusion (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56–0.82, P<0.001), and total in-hospital costs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39–1.42, P<0.01).

Conclusion

Compared with OPCABG, HCR did not improve early survival but decreased the length of hospitalization, length of ICU stay, intubation time, and need for red blood transfusion, and increased total in-hospitalcosts.

Clinical Outcomes of Revascularization Strategies for Patients With MVD/LMCA Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), a new minimally invasive procedure for patients requiring revascularization for multivessel coronary lesions, combines coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left anterior descending (LAD) lesions and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD coronary lesions. However, available data related to outcomes comparing the 3 revascularization therapies is limited to small studies.We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials up to December 31, 2014, without language restriction. A total of 16 randomized trials (n=4858 patients) comparing HCR versus PCI or off-pump CABG (OPCAB) were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events (CVE), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effect and fixed-effect models. Ranking probabilities were used to calculate a summary numerical value: the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.No significant differences were seen between the HCR and PCI in short term (in hospital and 30 days) with regard to MACCE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-2.35), all-cause death (OR = 2.09, 95% CI 0.34-7.66), MI (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.19-2.95), CVE (OR = 4.45, 95% CI 0.39-19.16), and TVR (OR = 6.99, 95% CI 0.17-39.39). However, OPCAB had lower MACCE than HCR (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.00-0.95). In midterm (1 year and 3 year), in comparison with HCR, PCI had higher all-cause death (OR = 5.66, 95% CI 0.00-13.88) and CVE (OR = 4.40, 95% CI 0.01-5.68), and lower MI (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.86), TVR (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.05-2.26), and thus the MACCE (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.35). Off-pump CABG presented a better outcome than HCR with significant lower MACCE (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.68). Surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities showed that HCR may be the superior strategy for MVD and LMCA disease when regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.84), MI (SUCRA = 0.76) in short term, and regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.99), MI (SUCRA = 0.94), and CVE (SUCRA = 0.92) in midterm.Hybrid coronary revascularization seemed to be a feasible and acceptable option for treatment of LMCA disease and MVD. More powerful evidences are required to precisely evaluate risks and benefits of the 3 therapies for patients who have different clinical characteristics.

Robotic coronary artery bypass grafting decreases 30-day complication rate, length of stay, and acute care facility discharge rate compared with conventional surgery

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes of robotic with conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

The study population included 2091 consecutive patients who underwent either conventional or robotic CABG from January 2007 to March 2012. Preoperative, intraoperative, and 30-day postoperative variables were collected for each group. To compare the incidence of rapid recovery between conventional and robotic CABG, the surrogate variables of early discharge and discharge to home (vs rehabilitation or acute care facility) were evaluated. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty robotic and 1619 conventional CABG cases were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that robotic surgery was a strong predictor of lower 30-day complications [odds ratio (OR), 0.24; P = 0.005], short length of stay (OR, 3.31; P < 0.001), and decreased need for an acute care facility (OR, 0.55; P = 0.032). In the presence of complications (New York State Complication Composite), the robotic technique was not associated with a change in discharge status.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective review, robotic CABG was associated with a lower 30-day complication rate, a shorter length of stay, and a lower incidence of acute care facility discharge than conventional on-pump CABG. It may suggest a more rapid recovery to preoperative status after robotic surgery; however, only a randomized prospective study could confirm the advantages of a robotic approach.