Port-access minimally invasive cardiac surgery in a patient without arms

Anesthetic challenges in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: Are we moving in a right direction?

Continuously growing patient's demand, technological innovation, and surgical expertise have led to the widespread popularity of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS). Patient's demand is being driven by less surgical trauma, reduced scarring, lesser pain, substantially lesser duration of hospital stay, and early return to normal activity. In addition, MICS decreases the incidence of postoperative respiratory dysfunction, chronic pain, chest instability, deep sternal wound infection, bleeding, and atrial fibrillation. Widespread media coverage, competition among surgeons and hospitals, and their associated brand values have further contributed in raising awareness among patients. In this process, surgeons and anesthesiologist have moved from the comfort of traditional wide incision surgeries to more challenging and intensively skilled MICS. A wide variety of cardiac lesions, techniques, and approaches coupled with a significant learning curve have made the anesthesiologist's job a challenging one. Anesthesiologists facilitate in providing optimal surgical settings beginning with lung isolation, confirmation of diagnosis, cannula placement, and cardioplegia delivery. However, the concern remains and it mainly relates to patient safety, prolonged intraoperative duration, and reduced surgical exposure leading to suboptimal treatment. The risk of neurological complications, aortic injury, phrenic nerve palsy, and peripheral vascular thromboembolism can be reduced by proper preoperative evaluation and patient selection. Nevertheless, advancement in surgical instruments, perfusion practices, increasing use of transesophageal echocardiography, and accumulating experience of surgeons and anesthesiologist have somewhat helped in amelioration of these valid concerns. A patient-centric approach and clear communication between the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and perfusionist are vital for the success of MICS.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review

In the recent years minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has become a well-established and increasingly used option for managing patients with a mitral valve pathology. Nonetheless, whether the purported benefits of MIMVS translate into clinically important outcomes remains controversial. Therefore, in this paper we provide an overview of MIMVS and discuss results, morbidity, mortality, and quality of life following mitral minimally invasive procedures. MIMVS has been proven to be a feasible alternative to the conventional full sternotomy approach with low perioperative morbidity and short-term mortality. Reported benefits of MIMVS include also decreased postoperative pain, improved postoperative respiratory function, reduced surgical trauma, and greater patient satisfaction. Finally, compared to standard surgery, MIMVS demonstrated comparable efficacy across a range of long-term efficacy measures such as freedom from reoperation and long-term survival.