Comparison of clinical outcomes between robotic and thoracoscopic mitral valve repair.

BACKGROUND

To compare the clinical outcomes and hospital cost of robotic versus thoracoscopic approaches to mitral valve plasty (MVP).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients who received minimal invasive MVP between 2007 January and 2020 January at our department. The basic characteristics, echocardiography, surgical data, postoperative adverse events and hospital cost of the patients were collected. The primary outcomes of this study were direct hospital cost and 30-day outcomes, including the operative time, complications, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 234 patients received minimally invasive MVP by using robotic (n=121) and thoracoscopic (n=113) technique respectively. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.9% (n=2), with no significant difference between two groups. The cardiopulmonary bypass time and aorta clamping time in thoracoscopic group were longer than that in robotic group (153.2±25.6 . 123.8±34.9 min and 111.8±23.0 . 84.9±24.3 min, P<0.001). The intraoperative blood transfusion rate (52.2% . 64.5%) and ICU time (2.8±2.3 . 3.6±2.7 days, all P<0.05) of the thoracoscopic group were lower than those in the robotic group. The adjusted hospital and operating room cost of the thoracoscopic group were significant lower ($18,208.4±$4,429.1 . $35,674.3±$4,936.1 and $9,038.3±$2,171.7 . $18,655.1±$2,558.3, all P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both robotic and thoracoscopic approach for MVP are safe and reliable. Robotic technique has shorter operation time, while thoracoscopic technique has more advantages in blood transfusion rate, postoperative ventilation time, ICU duration and hospitalization expenses.