Ezelsoy Mehmet, Caynak Baris, Bayram Muhammed, Oral Kerem, Bayramoglu Zehra, Sagbas Ertan, Aytekın Vedat, Akpınar Belhhan
Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Istanbul Bilim University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Heart Surg Forum. 2015 Apr 28;18(2):E042-6. doi: 10.1532/hsf.1239.
Minimally invasive bypass grafting surgery has entered the clincal routine in several centers around the world, with an increasing popularity in the last decade. In our study, we aimed to make a comparison between minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and conventional bypass grafting surgery in isolated proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) lesions.
Between January 2004 and December 2011, patients with proximal LAD lesions, who were treated with robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery and conventional bypass surgery, were included in the study. In Group 1, coronary bypass with cardiopulmonary bypass and complete sternotomy were applied to 35 patients and in Group 2, robotically assisted minimally invasive bypass surgery was applied to 35 patients. The demographic, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected retrospectively.
The mean follow-up time of the conventional bypass group was 5.7 ± 1.7 years, whereas this ratio was 7.3 ± 1.3 in the robotic group. There was no postoperative transient ischemic attack (TIA), wound infection, mortality, or need for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in any of the patients. In the conventional bypass group, blood transfusion and ventilation time were significantly higher (P < .05) than in the robotic group. The intensive care unit (ICU) stay and hospital stay were remarkably shorter in the robotic group (P < .01). The postoperative pneumonia rate was significantly higher (20%) in the conventional bypass group (P < .01). Postoperative day 1 pain score was higher in the robotic group (P < .05), however, postoperative day 3 pain score in the conventional bypass group was higher (P < .05). Graft patency rate was 88.6% in the conventional bypass group whereas this ratio was 91.4% in the robotic bypass group, which was not clinically significant (P > .05).
In isolated proximal LAD stenosis, robotic assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery requires less blood products, is associated with shorter ICU and hospital stay, and lesser pain in the early postoperative period in contrast to conventional surgery. The result of our studies, which showed similarities to the past studies, lead us to recognize the importance of minimally invasive interventions and the need to perform them more frequently in the future.
微创搭桥手术已在世界各地的多个中心纳入临床常规操作,在过去十年中越来越受欢迎。在我们的研究中,我们旨在比较孤立性左前降支(LAD)近端病变的微创冠状动脉搭桥手术与传统搭桥手术。
2004年1月至2011年12月期间,纳入接受机器人辅助微创冠状动脉搭桥手术和传统搭桥手术治疗的近端LAD病变患者。第1组,35例患者接受了体外循环和完全胸骨切开术的冠状动脉搭桥手术,第2组,35例患者接受了机器人辅助微创搭桥手术。回顾性收集人口统计学、术前、围手术期和术后数据。
传统搭桥组的平均随访时间为5.7±1.7年,而机器人组的这一比例为7.3±1.3年/。所有患者均未发生术后短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)、伤口感染、死亡或需要主动脉内球囊反搏(IABP)。在传统搭桥组中,输血和通气时间显著高于机器人组(P<.05)。机器人组的重症监护病房(ICU)停留时间和住院时间明显更短(P<.01)。传统搭桥组的术后肺炎发生率显著更高(20%)(P<.01)。机器人组术后第1天的疼痛评分更高(P<.05),然而,传统搭桥组术后第3天的疼痛评分更高(P<.05)。传统搭桥组的移植血管通畅率为88.6%,而机器人搭桥组的这一比例为91.4%,差异无临床意义(P>.05)。
在孤立性近端LAD狭窄中,与传统手术相比,机器人辅助微创冠状动脉搭桥手术需要的血制品更少,ICU和住院时间更短,术后早期疼痛更轻。我们的研究结果与过去的研究相似,使我们认识到微创干预的重要性以及未来更频繁进行此类干预的必要性。