Comparative Study Of Robotic And Conventional Mitral Valve Repair

Objective: We compared outcomes of robotic mitral valve repair with conventionalsternotomy approach to discuss the safety and effectiveness of robotic mitral valverepair.Methods: Between January2007and December2011,55patients with mitral valverepair using da Vinci system.40patients underwent conventional sternotomy mitralvalve repair from January2007to December2006. All the patients were divided intotwo groups, robotic and conventional sternotomy. Patients were aged45.0±13.3yearson average (range,20to70years), and were mostly male (72.7%) in robotic group.Patients were aged42.3±13.8years on average (range,20to68years), and weremostly male (60.0%) in conventional sternotomy group. We comparatively analyzedthe effectiveness between the two operative approaches through operative times andquality of mitral valve repair. And we comparatively analyzed the safety between thetwo operative approaches through incidence of complications, blood producttransfusion and postoperative bleeding, and postoperative quality of life.Results:1. Stature, weight, BMI, preoperative cardiac function and preoperativecomplications were similar between the two groups.2. Post-repair echocardiograms showed53(96.4%) with none or trace of mitralregurgitation in robotic group and38(95.0%) in conventional sternotomy group.Average cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer for robotic (142.1±37.5min) thanconventional sternotomy (79.1±20.4min)(p<0.01), and average myocardial ischemictime was also longer for robotic (95.8±28.5min) than conventional sternotomy(50.9±15.2min)(p<0.01).3. There were no in-hospital deaths. Mitral valve repair was achieved in all patients.Neurologic, pulmonary, and renal complications were similar between the two groups.Average amounts of postoperative bleeding were less for robotic (321.8±21.2mL) than conventional sternotomy (526.0±15.3mL)(p<0.01).Average packed red bloodcell was similar between the two groups (p>0.05).Average length of postoperativestay, ICU stay and intubation time were less in robotic group(p<0.05).Conclusions: Robotic repair of mitral valve is safe and effective in the patients withisolated mitral valve regurgitation.