Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Repair: From Total Endoscopic To Closed-Chest Robotic.

Javier Gallego-Poveda, Nelson Paulo, Mário Jorge Amorim, Diego González-Rivas, Elena Sandoval, Daniel Pereda, André Rato
{"title":"Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Repair: From Total Endoscopic To Closed-Chest Robotic.","authors":"Javier Gallego-Poveda, Nelson Paulo, Mário Jorge Amorim, Diego González-Rivas, Elena Sandoval, Daniel Pereda, André Rato","doi":"10.48729/pjctvs.429","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has evolved over the past few decades, thanks to advancements in technology and surgical techniques. These advancements have allowed surgeons to perform cardiac interventions through small incisions, reducing surgical trauma and improving patient outcomes1. However, despite these advancements, thoracoscopic mitral repair has not been widely adopted by the cardiac surgery community, possibly due to the lack of familiarity with video-assisted procedures1. Over the years, various minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) techniques have been developed to achieve comparable or better results while minimizing surgical trauma. These techniques have evolved from direct-vision procedures performed through a right thoracotomy with a rib retractor to video-directed approaches using long-shafted instruments1. Robotic surgery, introduced in the late 90s, has also played a significant role in mitral valve repair. The da Vinci system, the only robotic platform currently used for cardiac surgery, provides surgeons with enhanced dexterity and high-definition 3D visualization, allowing for precise and accurate procedure2, and is now the preferred approach for mitral repair in many programs3. The first mitral repair using the da Vinci system was performed in Europe by Carpentier and Mohr in 1998, followed by the first mitral replacement by Chitwood in the USA in 20002-4. The advantages of robotic technology allow surgeons to perform complex repair techniques such as papillary muscle repositioning and sliding leaflet plasty4. Studies have shown that robotic mitral surgery results in shorter ICU and hospital stays, better quality of life postoperatively, and improved cosmesis compared to conventional surgery5,6. In our experience, we have also observed significant benefits with robotic surgery, including reduced blood loss and the need for transfusions. This can be attributed to the closed-chest technique, which eliminates the need for a thoracotomy and rib retractor, reducing the risk of bleeding associated with these approaches7. In this article, we will compare the surgical steps of endoscopic and robotic mitral valve repair, providing detailed information on patient selection, operative techniques, and the requirements for building a successful program. By understanding the advantages and challenges of both approaches, surgeons can make informed decisions and provide the best possible care for their patients. Combined ablation and multivalvular procedures are mostly performed in few centers by minimally invasive techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":74480,"journal":{"name":"Portuguese journal of cardiac thoracic and vascular surgery","volume":"30 4","pages":"15-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Portuguese journal of cardiac thoracic and vascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48729/pjctvs.429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has evolved over the past few decades, thanks to advancements in technology and surgical techniques. These advancements have allowed surgeons to perform cardiac interventions through small incisions, reducing surgical trauma and improving patient outcomes1. However, despite these advancements, thoracoscopic mitral repair has not been widely adopted by the cardiac surgery community, possibly due to the lack of familiarity with video-assisted procedures1. Over the years, various minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) techniques have been developed to achieve comparable or better results while minimizing surgical trauma. These techniques have evolved from direct-vision procedures performed through a right thoracotomy with a rib retractor to video-directed approaches using long-shafted instruments1. Robotic surgery, introduced in the late 90s, has also played a significant role in mitral valve repair. The da Vinci system, the only robotic platform currently used for cardiac surgery, provides surgeons with enhanced dexterity and high-definition 3D visualization, allowing for precise and accurate procedure2, and is now the preferred approach for mitral repair in many programs3. The first mitral repair using the da Vinci system was performed in Europe by Carpentier and Mohr in 1998, followed by the first mitral replacement by Chitwood in the USA in 20002-4. The advantages of robotic technology allow surgeons to perform complex repair techniques such as papillary muscle repositioning and sliding leaflet plasty4. Studies have shown that robotic mitral surgery results in shorter ICU and hospital stays, better quality of life postoperatively, and improved cosmesis compared to conventional surgery5,6. In our experience, we have also observed significant benefits with robotic surgery, including reduced blood loss and the need for transfusions. This can be attributed to the closed-chest technique, which eliminates the need for a thoracotomy and rib retractor, reducing the risk of bleeding associated with these approaches7. In this article, we will compare the surgical steps of endoscopic and robotic mitral valve repair, providing detailed information on patient selection, operative techniques, and the requirements for building a successful program. By understanding the advantages and challenges of both approaches, surgeons can make informed decisions and provide the best possible care for their patients. Combined ablation and multivalvular procedures are mostly performed in few centers by minimally invasive techniques.

微创二尖瓣修复术:从全内镜到胸腔闭式机器人。
由于技术和手术技巧的进步,微创心脏手术在过去几十年中不断发展。这些进步使外科医生能够通过小切口进行心脏介入手术,从而减少手术创伤并改善患者预后1。然而,尽管取得了这些进步,胸腔镜二尖瓣修复术仍未被心脏外科界广泛采用,这可能是由于对视频辅助手术缺乏了解1。多年来,人们开发了各种微创二尖瓣手术(MIMVS)技术,以达到相当或更好的效果,同时最大限度地减少手术创伤。这些技术已经从使用肋骨牵开器通过右胸廓切开术进行的直视手术发展到使用长轴器械进行的视频引导手术1。上世纪 90 年代末引入的机器人手术也在二尖瓣修复中发挥了重要作用。达芬奇系统是目前唯一用于心脏手术的机器人平台,它为外科医生提供了更高的灵巧性和高清三维可视化,使手术更加精确和准确2,目前已成为许多项目中二尖瓣修复的首选方法3。1998 年,欧洲的 Carpentier 和 Mohr 首次使用达芬奇系统进行了二尖瓣修复手术,随后 Chitwood 于 2000 年在美国进行了首次二尖瓣置换手术2-4。机器人技术的优势使外科医生能够进行复杂的修复技术,如乳头肌复位和滑动瓣叶成形术4。研究表明,与传统手术相比,机器人二尖瓣手术能缩短重症监护室和住院时间,提高术后生活质量,改善外观5,6。根据我们的经验,机器人手术也有明显的优势,包括减少失血和输血需求。这要归功于闭胸技术,它不需要开胸和肋骨牵开器,降低了与这些方法相关的出血风险7。在本文中,我们将比较内窥镜和机器人二尖瓣修复术的手术步骤,详细介绍患者选择、手术技巧和建立成功手术方案的要求。通过了解这两种方法的优势和挑战,外科医生可以做出明智的决定,为患者提供尽可能最好的治疗。消融和多瓣膜联合手术大多在少数中心通过微创技术进行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信