Smith J Michael, Stein Hubert, Robinson John R, Hawes Jenny, Engel Ma Amy M
Department of Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA.
Int J Med Robot. 2006 Jun;2(2):197-201. doi: 10.1002/rcs.78.
Beating heart totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) utilizing a computer-enhanced telemanipulation system is a technically challenging procedure. The objective of our study was to compare two different anastomotic techniques.
Ten canine beating heart TECAB procedures were performed using Intuitive's daVinci surgical system. Left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) anastomosis was performed on all subjects. Anastomosis varied between a conventional running suture (8-0 Gore-tex) (group I) and an interrupted nitinol u-clip anastomosis (group II). On-table angiography was then performed to assess graft patency.
While internal mammary artery (IMA) mobilization time decreased over the course of the study (p = 0.017), there was no significant difference in ischaemia time, anastomosis time or angiographic assessment between anastomotic techniques. Although operative time in group II was significantly shorter than in group I, this was likely due to the small sample size. There were no differences in anastomotic time or coronary occlusion time. There were also no significant differences in canine weight, IMA mobilization time, lipectomy/pericardiotomy, LAD identification, subxiphoid port placement, stabilizer position, or LAD dissection time between the cases performed with the conventional running suture and the cases performed with u-clips.
Interrupted nitinol clip anastomosis or conventional running suture anastomoses are equally favourable in the short term when performing a TECAB procedure.
利用计算机增强型远程操作手术系统进行心脏不停跳全胸腔镜冠状动脉旁路移植术(TECAB)是一项技术要求很高的手术。我们研究的目的是比较两种不同的吻合技术。
使用直观公司的达芬奇手术系统进行了10例犬心脏不停跳TECAB手术。所有受试对象均进行了左乳内动脉(LIMA)至左前降支冠状动脉(LAD)的吻合。吻合方式在传统连续缝合(8-0戈尔泰克斯缝线)(第一组)和间断镍钛合金U型夹吻合(第二组)之间有所不同。然后进行术中血管造影以评估移植物通畅情况。
虽然在研究过程中乳内动脉(IMA)游离时间有所减少(p = 0.017),但吻合技术在缺血时间、吻合时间或血管造影评估方面没有显著差异。虽然第二组的手术时间明显短于第一组,但这可能是由于样本量小所致。吻合时间或冠状动脉阻断时间没有差异。在采用传统连续缝合和U型夹进行的手术之间,犬体重、IMA游离时间、脂肪切除/心包切开、LAD识别、剑突下端口放置、稳定器位置或LAD解剖时间也没有显著差异。
在进行TECAB手术时,短期内间断镍钛合金夹吻合或传统连续缝合吻合同样有利。