Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2020
[Comparison of quality of life and long-term outcomes following mitral valve replacement through robotically assisted versus median sternotomy approach].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Zhao Haizhi, Zhang Huajun, Yang Ming, Xiao Cangsong, Wang Yao, Gao Changqing, Wang Rong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mid- and long-term outcomes of patients receiving mitral valve replacement through robotically assisted and conventional median sternotomy approach.
METHODS: The data of 47 patients who underwent da Vinci robotic mitral valve replacement in our hospital between January, 2007 and December, 2015 were collected retrospectively (robotic group). From a total of 286 patients undergoing mitral valve replacement through the median thoracotomy approach between March, 2002 and June, 2014, 47 patients were selected as the median sternotomy group for matching with the robotic group at a 1:1 ratio. The perioperative data and follow-up data of the patients were collected, and the quality of life (QOL) of the patients at 30 days and 6 months was evaluated using the Quality of Life Short Form Survey (SF-12). The time of returning to work postoperatively and the patients' satisfaction with the surgical incision were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: All the patients in both groups completed mitral valve replacement successfully, and no death occurred during the operation. In the robotic group, only one patient experienced postoperative complication (pleural effusion); in median sternotomy group, one patient received a secondary thoracotomy for management of bleeding resulting from excessive postoperative drainage, and one patient died of septic shock after the operation. The volume of postoperative drainage, postoperative monitoring time, ventilation time, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly smaller or shorter in the robotic group than in the thoracotomy group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. Assessment of the patients at 30 days after the operation showed a better quality of life in the robotic group, but the difference between the two groups tended to diminish at 6 months. The patients in the robotic group reported significantly better satisfaction with the incision than those in the thoracotomy group (P < 0.001). At 6 months after the operation, the patients in the robotic group showed significantly faster recovery of work and daily activities than those in the thoracotomy group.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotically assisted mitral valve replacement is safe and reliable. Compared with the median sternotomy approach, the robotic approach is less invasive and promotes faster postoperative recovery of the patients, who have better satisfaction with the quality of life and wound recovery.
METHODS: The data of 47 patients who underwent da Vinci robotic mitral valve replacement in our hospital between January, 2007 and December, 2015 were collected retrospectively (robotic group). From a total of 286 patients undergoing mitral valve replacement through the median thoracotomy approach between March, 2002 and June, 2014, 47 patients were selected as the median sternotomy group for matching with the robotic group at a 1:1 ratio. The perioperative data and follow-up data of the patients were collected, and the quality of life (QOL) of the patients at 30 days and 6 months was evaluated using the Quality of Life Short Form Survey (SF-12). The time of returning to work postoperatively and the patients' satisfaction with the surgical incision were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: All the patients in both groups completed mitral valve replacement successfully, and no death occurred during the operation. In the robotic group, only one patient experienced postoperative complication (pleural effusion); in median sternotomy group, one patient received a secondary thoracotomy for management of bleeding resulting from excessive postoperative drainage, and one patient died of septic shock after the operation. The volume of postoperative drainage, postoperative monitoring time, ventilation time, and postoperative hospital stay were significantly smaller or shorter in the robotic group than in the thoracotomy group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups. Assessment of the patients at 30 days after the operation showed a better quality of life in the robotic group, but the difference between the two groups tended to diminish at 6 months. The patients in the robotic group reported significantly better satisfaction with the incision than those in the thoracotomy group (P < 0.001). At 6 months after the operation, the patients in the robotic group showed significantly faster recovery of work and daily activities than those in the thoracotomy group.
CONCLUSIONS: Robotically assisted mitral valve replacement is safe and reliable. Compared with the median sternotomy approach, the robotic approach is less invasive and promotes faster postoperative recovery of the patients, who have better satisfaction with the quality of life and wound recovery.