Comparison Of Intermediate-term Result And Life Of Quality After Mitral Valve Repair Using Conventional And Robotic Approaches

Objective: We compared outcomes of robotic mitral valve repair with conventionalsternotomy approach to discuss the safety and effectiveness of robotic mitral valverepair and evaluate the life of quality.Methods: Between January2007and December2012,80patients with mitral valverepair using da Vinci system,40patients underwent conventional sternotomy mitralvalve repair. We comparatively analyzed the effectiveness between the two operativeapproaches through intermediate-term result of echocardiography. And we alsoanalyzed the life of quality between the two operative approaches using the ShortForm-12Item Health Survey and Linear Analogue Self-Assessment of chest pain andfatigue.Results: There were no in-hospital deaths. Mitral valve repair was achieved in allpatients. Mean follow-up was32.5±16.0months in robotic group and42.4±20.4months in conventional sternotomy group. Echocardiographic mitral regurgitationwas none or trace (n=77,96.4%), mild (n=3,3.6%), no moderate and severe inrobotic group and none or trace (n=36,90%), mild(n=3,7.5%), moderate (n=1,2.5%), no severe in conventional sternotomy group. There were no significantdifferences in left ventricular diameter and ejection fraction between two groups(P>0.05).In life of quality, robotic repair was associated with improved scores on the ShortForm-12Item Health Survey Physical domain, and the Linear Analogue Self-Assess-ment frequency of chest pain and fatigue indices in6th month postoperatively; however,differences between two groups became indistinguishable after1year. Robotic repairpatients returned to work quicker (34vs55days, P<0.01), and also there was moresatisfactory about the incision (97.5%vs62.5%, P<0.01).Conclusions: Robotic repair of mitral valve is safe and effective in the patients withisolated mitral valve regurgitation. The intermediate-term result and life of quality were satisfactory.