Robotic mitral surgery at East Carolina University: a 6 year experience

Authors

  • Evelio Rodríguez,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
    • Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Alan P. Kypson,

    1. Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Simon C. Moten,

    1. Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • L. Wiley Nifong,

    1. Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • W. Randolph Chitwood Jr

    1. Department of Surgery, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

  • No conflict of interest was declared

Abstract

Background

Robotic mitral valve repair using the da Vinci telemanupilation system has become the standard of care at many centres worldwide. We perform the first robotic MV repair in the United States in the year 2000. This article reviews our 6 year experience and current technique of robotic MV repair as well as future trends in the field.

Methods

Retrospective review of our initial 200 robotic MV repairs. Patient demographics, operative times, type of repairs, morbidities, mortality, success of the repair including need for reoperations were reviewed.

Results

The average age was 57 ± 0.9 years. Average time for CPB was 156 minutes and for cross clamp 119 minutes. There was one operative death (0.5%) with no device related complications. Postoperative TEE demonstrated no MR in 187 (93.5%) patients, trace MR in 6 (3%) patients, moderate MR in 5 (2.5%) patients, and SAM in 2 (1%) patients. Five (2.5%) patients required reoperation for failed repairs.

Conclusions

Robotic MV repair operations are safe with excellent early results. Follow-up studies are needed to determine repair longevity. We must continue to improve the current technology in order to develop the next generation of tools that will facilitate robotic MV repairs. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ancillary