The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2012
Robotic posterior mitral leaflet repair: neochordal versus resectional techniques.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Mihaljevic Tomislav, Pattakos Gregory, Gillinov A Marc, Bajwa Gurjyot, Planinc Mislav, Williams Sarah J, Blackstone Eugene H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Resectional techniques are the established method of posterior mitral valve leaflet repair for degenerative disease; however, use of neochordae in a robotically assisted approach is gaining acceptance because of its versatility for difficult multisegment disease. The purposes of this study were to compare the versatility, safety, and effectiveness of neochordal versus resectional techniques for robotic posterior mitral leaflet repair.
METHODS: From December 2007 to July 2010, 334 patients underwent robotic posterior mitral leaflet repair for degenerative disease by a resectional (n = 248) or neochordal (n = 86) technique. Outcomes were compared both unadjusted and after propensity score matching.
RESULTS: Neochordae were more likely to be used than resection in patients with two (28% versus 13%; p = 0.002) or three (3.7% versus 0.87%; p = 0.08) diseased posterior leaflet segments. Three resection patients (0.98%) but no neochordal patient required reoperation for hemodynamically significant systolic anterior motion. Residual mitral regurgitation (MR) at hospital discharge was similar for matched neochordal versus resection patients (MR 0+, 82% versus 89%; MR 1+, 14% versus 8.2%; MR 2+, 2.3% versus 2.6%; 1 neochordal patient had 4+ MR and underwent reoperation; p = 0.14). Among matched patients, postoperative mortality and morbidity were similarly low.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a resectional technique, robotic posterior mitral leaflet repair with neochordae is associated with shorter operative times and no occurrence of systolic anterior motion. The versatility, effectiveness, and safety of this repair make it a good choice for patients with advanced multisegment disease.
METHODS: From December 2007 to July 2010, 334 patients underwent robotic posterior mitral leaflet repair for degenerative disease by a resectional (n = 248) or neochordal (n = 86) technique. Outcomes were compared both unadjusted and after propensity score matching.
RESULTS: Neochordae were more likely to be used than resection in patients with two (28% versus 13%; p = 0.002) or three (3.7% versus 0.87%; p = 0.08) diseased posterior leaflet segments. Three resection patients (0.98%) but no neochordal patient required reoperation for hemodynamically significant systolic anterior motion. Residual mitral regurgitation (MR) at hospital discharge was similar for matched neochordal versus resection patients (MR 0+, 82% versus 89%; MR 1+, 14% versus 8.2%; MR 2+, 2.3% versus 2.6%; 1 neochordal patient had 4+ MR and underwent reoperation; p = 0.14). Among matched patients, postoperative mortality and morbidity were similarly low.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a resectional technique, robotic posterior mitral leaflet repair with neochordae is associated with shorter operative times and no occurrence of systolic anterior motion. The versatility, effectiveness, and safety of this repair make it a good choice for patients with advanced multisegment disease.