Pineda Andrés M, Santana Orlando, Cortes-Bergoderi Mery, Lamelas Joseph
Division of Cardiology, Columbia University, Mount Sinai Heart Institute, Miami Beach, FL 33140, USA.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Jun;16(6):875-9. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt063. Epub 2013 Feb 26.
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'is a minimally invasive approach for resection of benign cardiac masses superior to standard full sternotomy?' A total of 50 papers were found using the reported search, of which, 11 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, country, journal, date of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. All 11 papers were retrospective studies, from which 4 were case-control studies comparing the minimally invasive approach with conventional full sternotomy, and 7 were case series. There were two minimally invasive techniques used, a right mini-thoracotomy and a partial hemi-sternotomy, the former being the most commonly used. The resection of benign cardiac masses is a low-risk procedure, with no mortality or conversions to full sternotomy reported. From the 4 case-control studies, cross-clamp time was similar in both groups, and only one report found a prolonged perfusion time with the minimally invasive approach. The incidence of major postoperative complications, including bleeding requiring reoperation (average from case-control studies: 0-4.5 vs 0-5.8%), renal failure (0 vs 0-10%) and prolonged ventilation (6-13 vs 11-19%), for the two approaches was similar. The incidence of postoperative stroke was better for the minimally invasive approach in one study (0 vs 14%, P = 0.023). The main advantages of this technique are shorter intensive care unit (26-31 vs 46-60 h) and hospital stay (3.6-5.2 vs 6.2-7.4 days), the minimally invasive approach being significantly better in one and three reports, respectively. We conclude that minimally invasive resection of a benign cardiac mass using a right mini-thoracotomy approach can be performed with an operative morbidity and mortality at least similar to the standard full sternotomy approach. The information currently available for the minimally invasive approach for the resection of benign cardiac masses is limited and based only on retrospective studies and, therefore, prospective studies are required to confirm the potential benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
一篇心脏外科的最佳证据主题文章是根据结构化方案撰写的。所探讨的问题是“对于良性心脏肿物切除术,微创方法是否优于标准的全胸骨切开术?”通过报告的检索共找到50篇论文,其中11篇代表了回答该临床问题的最佳证据。这些论文的作者、国家、期刊、发表日期、研究的患者群体、研究类型、相关结局和结果均列表呈现。所有11篇论文均为回顾性研究,其中4篇为病例对照研究,比较了微创方法与传统全胸骨切开术,7篇为病例系列研究。使用了两种微创技术,即右胸小切口和部分半胸骨切开术,前者使用最为普遍。良性心脏肿物切除术是一种低风险手术,未报告有死亡病例或转为全胸骨切开术的情况。在4篇病例对照研究中,两组的交叉钳夹时间相似,只有一份报告发现微创方法的灌注时间延长。两种手术方法的主要术后并发症发生率相似,包括需要再次手术的出血(病例对照研究的平均发生率:0 - 4.5%对0 - 5.8%)、肾衰竭(0对0 - 10%)和通气时间延长(6 - 13%对11 - 19%)。在一项研究中,微创方法的术后卒中发生率更低(0对14%,P = 0.023)。该技术的主要优点是重症监护病房住院时间较短(26 - 31小时对46 - 60小时)和住院时间较短(3.6 - 5.2天对6.2 - 7.4天),分别在一份和三份报告中显示微创方法明显更优。我们得出结论,使用右胸小切口方法微创切除良性心脏肿物,其手术发病率和死亡率至少与标准全胸骨切开术方法相似。目前可获得的关于微创切除良性心脏肿物方法的信息有限,且仅基于回顾性研究,因此需要进行前瞻性研究以证实微创手术的潜在益处。