Building a successful minimally invasive mitral valve repair program before introducing the robotic approach: The Massachusetts General Hospital experience.
minimally invasive cardiac surgery
minimally invasive mitral valve repair
mitral valve (MV) repair
mitral valve prolapse
robotic cardiac surgery
robotic mitral valve repair
Journal
Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine
ISSN: 2297-055X
Titre abrégé: Front Cardiovasc Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
01
12
2022
accepted:
02
03
2023
medline:
8
4
2023
entrez:
7
4
2023
pubmed:
8
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) requiring surgical repair (MVr) are increasingly operated using minimally invasive strategies. Skill acquisition may be facilitated by a dedicated MVr program. We present here our institutional experience in establishing minimally invasive MVr (starting in 2014), laying the foundation to introduce robotic MVr. We reviewed all patients that had undergone MVr for MVP Between 2013 and 2020, 799 patients were operated for native MVP at our institution, of which 761 (95.2%) received planned MVr (263 [34.6%] via mini-thoracotomy) and 38 (4.8%) received planned MV replacement. With increasing proportions of minimally invasive procedures (2014: 14.8%, 2020: 46.5%), we observed a continuous growth in overall institutional volume of MVP ( A focused approach towards minimally invasive MVr has transformed the overall MVr strategy (incision; repair techniques) at our institution, leading to a growth in MVr volume and improved repair rates without significant complications. On this foundation, robotic MVr was first introduced at our institution in 2021 with excellent outcomes. This emphasizes the importance of building a competent team to perform these challenging operations, especially during the initial learning curve.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Patients with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) requiring surgical repair (MVr) are increasingly operated using minimally invasive strategies. Skill acquisition may be facilitated by a dedicated MVr program. We present here our institutional experience in establishing minimally invasive MVr (starting in 2014), laying the foundation to introduce robotic MVr.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We reviewed all patients that had undergone MVr for MVP
Results
UNASSIGNED
Between 2013 and 2020, 799 patients were operated for native MVP at our institution, of which 761 (95.2%) received planned MVr (263 [34.6%] via mini-thoracotomy) and 38 (4.8%) received planned MV replacement. With increasing proportions of minimally invasive procedures (2014: 14.8%, 2020: 46.5%), we observed a continuous growth in overall institutional volume of MVP (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
A focused approach towards minimally invasive MVr has transformed the overall MVr strategy (incision; repair techniques) at our institution, leading to a growth in MVr volume and improved repair rates without significant complications. On this foundation, robotic MVr was first introduced at our institution in 2021 with excellent outcomes. This emphasizes the importance of building a competent team to perform these challenging operations, especially during the initial learning curve.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37025683
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1113908
pmc: PMC10070799
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1113908Informations de copyright
© 2023 van Kampen, Goudot, Butte, Paneitz, Borger, Badhwar, Sundt, Langer and Melnitchouk.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
MB's hospital receives speaker's honoraria and/or consulting fees on his behalf from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott and Artivion. SM receives speaker's honoraria from Medtronic. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020 May 1;30(5):691-698
pubmed: 31968097
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019 Jul 1;29(1):43-50
pubmed: 30783681
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009 Sep;36(3):532-8
pubmed: 19464911
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Aug 3;56(6):455-62
pubmed: 20670754
JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Oct 1;5(10):1092-1101
pubmed: 32609292
Innovations (Phila). 2021 Jul-Aug;16(4):310-316
pubmed: 33781118
BMJ Open. 2021 Apr 14;11(4):e047676
pubmed: 33853807
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023 Feb;165(2):779-783
pubmed: 34862051
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Jul;146(1):109-13
pubmed: 22795462
C R Acad Sci III. 1996 Mar;319(3):219-23
pubmed: 8761668
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008 Nov;136(5):1205; discussion 1205-6
pubmed: 19026803
J Card Surg. 2021 Feb;36(2):624-628
pubmed: 33403721
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Jan 4;59(1):180-186
pubmed: 32776150
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Jul;102(1):14-21
pubmed: 27041453
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005 Jun;129(6):1395-404
pubmed: 15942584
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Aug;160(2):385-394.e1
pubmed: 31570218
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022 Feb 18;61(3):637-644
pubmed: 34738105
Ann Thorac Surg. 2023 Feb;115(2):412-419
pubmed: 35779603
Interv Cardiol. 2018 Jan;13(1):14-19
pubmed: 29593831
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 Nov;2(6):744-50
pubmed: 24349976
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015 Apr;20(4):458-62
pubmed: 25568258
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Sep;148(3):995-1003; discussion 1003-4
pubmed: 25048633
Ann Thorac Surg. 2005 Feb;79(2):492-8
pubmed: 15680822
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 Nov;2(6):693-703
pubmed: 24349970
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019 Sep 1;29(3):409-415
pubmed: 31065673
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003 Feb;125(2):273-82
pubmed: 12579095
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Apr 24;:
pubmed: 28476349
Innovations (Phila). 2014 Jan-Feb;9(1):43-8
pubmed: 24562290
Future Cardiol. 2011 Jul;7(4):511-22
pubmed: 21797747
Circulation. 2013 Jul 30;128(5):483-91
pubmed: 23804253
Eur Heart J. 2015 Jul 7;36(26):1651-9
pubmed: 25870204
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998 Mar;115(3):567-74; discussion 574-6
pubmed: 9535444
Ann Thorac Surg. 2020 Feb;109(2):437-444
pubmed: 31473178
Can J Cardiol. 2015 Jun;31(6):744-51
pubmed: 25913471