These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Robotic total endoscopic double-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting--state of procedure development.
    Author: Bonatti J, Lehr EJ, Schachner T, Wiedemann D, Weidinger F, Wehman B, de Biasi AR, Bonaros N, Griffith B.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2012 Nov; 144(5):1061-6. PubMed ID: 23079007.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Robotic total endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) has been under development for 10 years. With increasing experience and technological improvement, double-vessel TECAB has become feasible. The aim of the present study was to compare the current outcomes of single- and double-vessel TECAB. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2011, 484 patients underwent TECAB by 4 surgeons at 2 institutions. The median patient age was 60 years (range, 31-90), and the median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation was 2 (range, 0-13). Single-vessel (n = 334) and double-vessel (n = 150) procedures were performed using the da Vinci, da Vinci S, and da Vinci Si robotic systems. RESULTS: Compared with the single-vessel procedure, double-vessel TECAB required a longer operative time (median, 375 minutes; range, 168-795; vs median, 240; range, 112-605; P < .001) and had an increased conversion rate to a larger thoracic incision (31/150 [20.7%] vs 31/334 [9.3%]; P < .001). The median ventilation time was 10 hours (range, 0-288) for double-vessel versus 8 hours (range, 0-278) for single-vessel procedures (P = .006). The hospital stay was comparable, with 6 days (range, 2-27) for double-vessel TECAB and 6 days (range, 2-33) for single-vessel TECAB (P = .794). Perioperative mortality was 0.3% (1/334) with single-vessel TECAB and 2.0% (3/150) with double-vessel TECAB (P = .090). Freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebral events at 5 years was similar after double- and single-vessel TECAB (73.5% vs 83.1%, P = .150). The 5-year survival was 95.8% and 93.9% (P = .708). CONCLUSIONS: Double-vessel TECAB appears feasible and reproducible. The operative times were longer and the conversion rates to a larger thoracic incision were greater than with single-vessel TECAB. Also, the postoperative ventilation time was longer. Other perioperative morbidity and mortality and the recovery time and long-term clinical outcomes, however, were comparable.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]