General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025
Robotic vs. sternotomy mitral valve replacement in rheumatic disease: early postoperative outcomes compared.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akbaş Anıl, Güler Salih, Duman Zihni Mert, Apaydın Zinar, Yazıcı Batuhan, Karakoç Kübra Gözaçık, Kadiroğulları Ersin, Aydın Ünal
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare early postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted mitral valve replacement (r-MVR) and conventional sternotomy-based mitral valve replacement (c-MVR) in patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease (RMVD).
METHODS: A retrospective analysis included 225 adult patients who underwent isolated MVR for RMVD between November 2018 and December 2023. Among them, 105 underwent r-MVR and 120 underwent c-MVR. Evaluated parameters included operative time, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times, extubation time, ICU and hospital stay, chest drainage, mechanical ventilation duration, postoperative pain scores, complications, and 30-day mortality.
RESULTS: Patients in the r-MVR group showed significantly better short-term outcomes. Postoperative drainage was lower (323 ± 154 mL vs. 532 ± 320 mL), red blood cell transfusion was reduced (0.8 ± 0.9 vs. 2.3 ± 2.4 units), and intubation time was shorter (10.2 ± 6.2 vs. 17.7 ± 21.3 h) compared to the c-MVR group (p < 0.001). Additionally, hospital stay (6.8 ± 3.7 vs. 9.4 ± 4.7 days) and pain scores (2.4 ± 0.85 vs. 3.5 ± 0.96) were significantly improved in the robotic group. However, CPB and cross-clamp times were longer in r-MVR (168 ± 47 vs. 104 ± 31 min and 106 ± 34 vs. 69 ± 21 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Complication and 30-day mortality rates were similar between groups.
CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted mitral valve replacement is a safe and effective alternative to conventional surgery in RMVD. Despite longer operative times, it offers better early recovery and may be preferred in experienced centers for selected patients.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis included 225 adult patients who underwent isolated MVR for RMVD between November 2018 and December 2023. Among them, 105 underwent r-MVR and 120 underwent c-MVR. Evaluated parameters included operative time, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times, extubation time, ICU and hospital stay, chest drainage, mechanical ventilation duration, postoperative pain scores, complications, and 30-day mortality.
RESULTS: Patients in the r-MVR group showed significantly better short-term outcomes. Postoperative drainage was lower (323 ± 154 mL vs. 532 ± 320 mL), red blood cell transfusion was reduced (0.8 ± 0.9 vs. 2.3 ± 2.4 units), and intubation time was shorter (10.2 ± 6.2 vs. 17.7 ± 21.3 h) compared to the c-MVR group (p < 0.001). Additionally, hospital stay (6.8 ± 3.7 vs. 9.4 ± 4.7 days) and pain scores (2.4 ± 0.85 vs. 3.5 ± 0.96) were significantly improved in the robotic group. However, CPB and cross-clamp times were longer in r-MVR (168 ± 47 vs. 104 ± 31 min and 106 ± 34 vs. 69 ± 21 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Complication and 30-day mortality rates were similar between groups.
CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted mitral valve replacement is a safe and effective alternative to conventional surgery in RMVD. Despite longer operative times, it offers better early recovery and may be preferred in experienced centers for selected patients.