Robotic and endoscopic mitral valve repair for degenerative disease

Robotic Versus Thoracoscopic Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Matched Studies

Mitral regurgitation is the most prevalent form of valvular heart disease, impacting over 24 million people globally. Robotic and thoracoscopic minimally invasive mitral valve repair (MIMR) techniques have emerged as viable alternatives to traditional open-heart surgery. However, the comparative effectiveness and safety of these 2 approaches remain underexplored. This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, aimed to compare robotic and thoracoscopic MIMR outcomes. A literature search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to identify studies comparing these 2 surgical techniques. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Six propensity score-matched studies and 1 retrospective cohort study, involving 11,823 patients, were included, with 5851 undergoing robotic mitral valve repair and 5972 receiving thoracoscopic MIMR. No significant differences were found in perioperative mortality [risk ratio (RR): 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65-1.45] or pump/clamp times. Robotic surgery was associated with longer operative times (mean difference: 33.01 minutes) and higher intraoperative transfusion rates (RR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.07-2.18), but a lower risk of atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83-0.95). In conclusion, robotic and thoracoscopic MIMR show comparable mortality and overall safety profiles. However, robotic surgery may require longer operative times and increased transfusion needs, while reducing the risk of atrial fibrillation. Further high-quality, randomized studies are warranted to validate these findings.

Early Postoperative Complications of Robotic-assisted Versus Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The current work was designed to evaluate whether robotic-assisted mitral valve surgery is associated with a different incidence of early postoperative complications compared with the traditional minimally invasive approach.

DESIGN

A retrospective monocentric cohort study was conducted.

SETTING

The study was performed in an academic hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 375 patients who underwent standard thoracoscopic minimally invasive mitral valve surgery and robotic-assisted mitral valve surgery between April 2014 and November 2022 were enrolled.

INTERVENTION

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

After adjustment using propensity score analysis, 98 patients from each group were identified. Patients who underwent robotic surgery presented a similar rate of early complications to patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery. Nevertheless, they showed shorter intensive care unit and postoperative hospital stays. Finally, patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery were more frequently discharged home.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified a similar incidence of early complications in robotic-assisted mitral valve surgery compared with minimally invasive mitral valve surgery; conversely, patients receiving robotic-assisted surgery were discharged earlier, and more frequently discharged home.

A propensity matched comparison of robotic vs. traditional minimal access approach for mitral valve repair with concomitant cryoablation

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs frequently in patients with mitral valve disease. Results of cryoablation concomitant with either minimally invasive video-assisted [minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS)] or with robotic-assisted (RMV) mitral valve surgery have previously been separately reported. However, there are up-to-date no studies comparing the two procedures in terms of safety, efficacy, and mid-term follow-up.

Methods

Between January 2017 and March 2022, 294 patients underwent MIMVS, and 187 patients underwent RMV at our institution. After 1:1 propensity score matching using 22 preoperative variables, the study included 104 patients. Group 1 (MIMVS) included 52 patients operated on between 2017-2022 using a minimally invasive video-assisted right-sided mini-thoracotomy. Group 2 (RMV) included 52 patients operated on between 2019-2021 using a robotic-assisted approach. Early and mid-term outcomes were assessed, including maintenance of sinus rhythm. Follow-up was 100% complete at a median follow-up of 2 years.

Results

For the entire propensity matched cohort, the median EuroSCORE II was 3.14 [interquartile range (IQR), 1.93-4.99], the median age was 68 (IQR, 61-74) years, and two thirds of the patients were male. Most (72.1%) underwent mitral valve surgery, and 26.9% had an additional tricuspid procedure. Only four patients underwent mitral valve replacement (3.8%). The majority (87.5%) received a left-sided atrial Maze and 12.5% a bi-atrial Maze. The left atrial appendage was occluded in 72.1% cases. Overall, there were no significant differences between the two propensity matched groups in baseline demographics or intra-operative characteristics. Similarly, there were no significant differences in the post-operative short and mid-term outcomes between the two groups. There were no in-hospital or 30-day deaths. At the mid-term survival was similar between groups, log-rank test P=0.056. Maintenance of sinus rhythm at follow-up was 76%.

Conclusions

Mitral or double valve repair with concomitant cryoablation can be safely performed with either a MIMVS or RMV approach. Both methods demonstrated outstanding early and mid-term outcomes.

Robotic mitral valve repair surgery: where do we go from here?

Surgical mitral valve repair through median sternotomy has long presented the treatment of choice for degenerative mitral valve disease. In recent decades, minimal invasive surgical techniques have been developed and are now gaining widespread popularity. Robotic cardiac surgery presents an emerging field, initially adopted only by selected centres, mostly in the United States. In recent years, the number of centers interested in robotic mitral valve surgery has grown with an increasing adoption in Europe as well. Increasing interest and surgical experience gained are stimulating further developments in the field and the full potential of robotic mitral valve surgery remains to be developed.