Browsing by Subject "Robotic Surgical Procedures"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Robotic Mitral Valve Repair in Older Individuals: An Analysis of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database.(The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2018-11) Wang, Alice; Brennan, J Matthew; Zhang, Shuaiqi; Jung, Sin-Ho; Yerokun, Babatunde; Cox, Morgan L; Jacobs, Jeffrey P; Badhwar, Vinay; Suri, Rakesh M; Thourani, Vinod; Halkos, Michael E; Gammie, James S; Gillinov, A Marc; Smith, Peter K; Glower, DonaldBackground
National outcomes of robotic mitral valve repair (rMVr) compared with sternotomy (sMVr) in older patients are currently unknown.Methods
From 2011 to 2014, all patients aged 65 years and older undergoing MVr in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database linked to Medicare claims data were identified. Patients who underwent rMVr were propensity matched to patients who underwent sMVr. Standard differences and falsification outcome of baseline characteristics were tested to ensure a balanced match. Cox models were used to calculate 3-year mortality, heart failure readmission, and mitral valve reintervention, adjusting for competing risks where appropriate.Results
After matching, 503 rMVr patients from 65 centers and 503 sMVr from 251 centers were included. There were no significant differences in comorbidities or falsification outcome. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were longer with rMVr versus sMVr at 125 versus 102 minutes (p < 0.0001) and 85 versus 75 minutes (p < 0.0001), respectively. The rMVr patients had shorter intensive care unit (27 vs 47 hours, p < 0.0001) and hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, p < 0.0001), less frequent transfusion (21% vs 35%, p < 0.0001), and less atrial fibrillation (28% vs 40%, p < 0.0001). Three-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 2.16; p = 0.52), heart failure readmission (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 2.52, p = 0.10), and mitral valve reintervention (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 1.18; p = 0.22) did not differ between the groups.Conclusions
The rMVr procedure was associated with less atrial fibrillation, less frequent transfusion requirement, and shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay, without a significant difference in 3-year mortality, heart failure readmission, or mitral valve reintervention. In older patients, rMVr confers short-term advantages without a detriment to midterm outcomes.Item Open Access Which Cholecystectomy Technique Would Surgeons Prefer on Themselves?(Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques, 2020-12) Lima, Diego L; Lima, Raquel Nogueira CL; Dos Santos, Dalmir C; Shadduck, Phillip P; Carvalho, Gustavo L; Malcher, FlavioBackground
As the minimally invasive surgery revolution approaches 30 years, many techniques are now available for cholecystectomy: open, conventional laparoscopy, ini-laparoscopy, single incision, robotic, and natural orifice. Although much has been published about patient preferences regarding these techniques, less is known about surgeon perceptions and preferences. The aim of this study was to survey attending and trainee surgeons about which cholecystectomy technique they would prefer for themselves and what factors determine their decision.Methods
Attending fellow and resident surgeons globally completed a Google Forms online questionnaire that was posted in 3 closed groups for surgeons on Facebook and WhatsApp.Results
The online questionnaire was completed by 600 surgeons (453 attending surgeons and 147 residents/fellows). Most respondents were male individuals (87.6% of attending surgeons, 78.2% of trainee surgeons). The most common age range of respondents was 31 to 40 years. Surgeon response was global, with especially good representation from North American, Asian, and European physicians. When conventional laparoscopy, mini-laparoscopy, and robotic surgery were the options offered for cholecystectomy, 58.5% of trainees and 45.7% of surgeons chose conventional laparoscopy. When asked if they would consider a single-incision or natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery approach, 91.5% answered no. When asked which technique they would prefer if hypothetically all techniques were equally safe, about three-fourths chose either conventional laparoscopy (46%) or mini-laparoscopy (27%). When asked to rank which factors they considered most important in choosing a surgical technique, surgeon experience (52%) and safety of the procedure (45%) were the 2 most important factors.Conclusions
When an international sample of 600 attending and trainee surgeons were asked about undergoing a cholecystectomy on themselves, most chose either conventional laparoscopy or mini-laparoscopy as their preferred access technique. Single-incision and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery approaches were unpopular. Surgeons ranked the experience of the operating surgeon and safety of the procedure as the most important factors guiding their decision.