Port-Access Mitral Valve Surgery-An Evolution of Technique

Late Survival After Redo Mitral Operation With Minithoracotomy Compared With Sternotomy

BACKGROUND

The long-term effectiveness of minithoracotomy over redo median sternotomy for reoperative mitral operation is not well described. Here we present long-term survival after reoperative mitral operation based on operative approach.

METHODS

Adults undergoing mitral valve operation with previous sternotomy by redo sternotomy and minithoracotomy were reviewed from our prospectively maintained institutional database from 1997 to 2022. Propensity score matching was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 750 consecutive patients, thoracotomy was performed in 503 (67%). Median follow-up was 5.0 years (interquartile range, 0-23 years). Intraoperatively, sternotomy patients were more likely to have central aortic cannulation (205 of 223 [93%] vs 265 of 481 [56%]), cardioplegic arrest (220 of 223 [99%] vs 124 of 481 [26%]), and mitral valve replacement (190 of 223 [85%] vs 358 of 481 [74%]). Thoracotomy patients were older (63 ± 13 vs 58 ± 14 years) with elective presentation (387 of 503 [77%] vs 128 of 247 [52%]). Sternotomy patients were more likely to have endocarditis (52 of 247 [21%] vs 45 of 503 [9%], P < .001). At 10 years, thoracotomy patients experienced improved survival (52% ± 3% vs 46% ± 4%, P = .004). After propensity matching, 10-year survival was significantly higher for thoracotomy patients compared with sternotomy patients (60% ± 5% vs 42% ± 5%, P = .0006). The greatest difference in survival was at the first 6 months after operation (96% ± 1% vs 81% ± 3%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing reoperative mitral valve operation, minimally invasive right anterior thoracotomy can significantly decrease risk of death in the first 6 months, with durable survival benefit out to 10 years. We present a large single-center series to suggest an important opportunity to durably improve outcomes after reoperative mitral operation through wider use of right minithoracotomy.

Mastering the learning curve of endoscopic mitral valve surgery

Endoscopic mitral valve surgery is a challenging procedure. Surgical volume is mandatory to achieve sufficient proficiency and superior results. To this date the learning curve has proven to be challenging. Offering high-fidelity simulation based training for both residents as experienced surgeons can help in establishing and enlarging surgical competences in shorter time without intraoperative trial and error.

Historical evolution of robot-assisted cardiac surgery: a 25-year journey

Many patients and surgeons today favor the least invasive access to an operative site. The adoption of robot-assisted cardiac surgery has been slow, but now has come to fruition. The development of modern surgical robots took surgeons close collaboration with mechanical, electrical, and optical engineers. Moreover, the necessary project funding required entrepreneurs, federal grants, and venture capital. Non-robotic minimally invasive cardiac surgery paved the way to the application of surgical robots by making changes in operative approaches, instruments, visioning modalities, cardiopulmonary perfusion techniques, and especially surgeons' attitudes. In this article, the serial development of robot-assisted cardiac surgery is detailed from the beginning and through clinical application. Included are references to the historical and most recent clinical series that have given us the evidence that robot-assisted cardiac surgery is safe and provides excellent outcomes. To this end, in many institutions these procedures now have become a new standard of care. This evolution reflects Sir Isaac Newton's famous 1676 quote when referring to Rene Descartes, "If have seen further [sic] than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

Decision Making during the Learning Curve of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: A Focused Review for the Starting Minimally Invasive Surgeon

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is evolving rapidly since the early 1990’s and is now increasingly adopted as the standard approach for mitral valve surgery. It has a long and challenging learning curve and there are many considerations regarding technique, planning and patient selection when starting a minimally invasive program. In the current review, we provide an overview of all considerations and the decision-making process during the learning curve.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery

There is considerable interest and demand in the application of minimally invasive techniques in cardiac surgery driven by multiple factors including patient cosmesis and satisfaction, reduction of surgical trauma and the development of specialized instrumentation that allows these procedures to be performed safely. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has been conducted for more than 25 years and has been shown to offer multiple benefits including better cosmetic results, enhanced post-operative recovery, improved patient satisfaction and most importantly, equivalent clinical outcomes with regards to quality and safety when compared to the standard sternotomy approach. MIMVS may be particularly beneficial in certain subgroups of patients, for example patients undergoing redo mitral valve surgery. In this article, we discuss patient selection criteria for MIMVS, the merits and drawbacks of MIMVS relative to conventional sternotomy approaches, and detail procedural aspects including anaesthetic management, intraoperative technique, and important considerations in myocardial protection and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). When considering developing a MIMVS programme, as for any new technique, a team approach to the introduction of the programme is essential. Although it is clear that patient selection is important, particularly early in a surgical programme, with experience complex repairs can be performed through a minimally invasive approach with excellent outcomes.

Robotic versus port-access mitral repair: A propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Port-access (PORT) and robotic (ROBO) mitral repair are well established, but differences in patient selection and outcomes are not well documented.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 129 ROBO and 628 PORT mitral repairs at one institution. ROBO patients had 4 cm nonrib spreading incisions with robotic assistance, while PORT patients had 6-8 cm rib spreading incisions with thoracoscopic assistance. Propensity score analysis matched patients for differences in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Unmatched ROBO patients were younger (58 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 13, p = .05), had a higher percentage of males (77% vs. 63%, p = .003) and had less NYHA Class 3-4 symptoms (11% vs. 21%, p < .01), less atrial fibrillation (19% vs. 29%, p = .02) and less tricuspid regurgitation (14% vs. 24%, p = .01). Propensity score analysis of matched patients showed that pump time (275 ± 57 vs. 207 ± 55, p < .0001) and clamp time (152 ± 38 vs. 130 ± 34, p < .0001) were longer for ROBO patients. However, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, and 5-year survival (97 ± 1% vs. 96 ± 3%, p = .7) were not different. For matched patients with degenerative valve disease, 5-year incidence of mitral reoperation (3 ± 2% vs. 1 ± 1%), severe mitral regurgitation (MR) (6 ± 4% vs. 1 ± 1%), or ≥2 + MR (12 ± 5% vs. 12 ± 4%), were not significantly different between ROBO versus PORT approaches. Predictors of recurrent moderate MR were connective tissue disease, functional etiology, and non-White race, but not surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

In this first comparison out to 5 years, robotic versus port-access approach to mitral repair had longer pump and clamp times. Perioperative morbidity, 5-year survival, and 5-year repair durability were otherwise similar.