loading page

Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Robotic Mitral Valve Surgery and Conventional Mitral Valve Surgery
  • +3
  • Hüseyin Sicim,
  • MURAT KADAN,
  • Gökhan Erol,
  • Vedat Yildirim,
  • Cengiz Bolcal,
  • Ufuk Demirkılıç
Hüseyin Sicim
Author Profile
MURAT KADAN
Author Profile
Gökhan Erol
Gülhane Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile
Vedat Yildirim
Gulhane Military Academy of Medicine
Author Profile
Cengiz Bolcal
gata
Author Profile
Ufuk Demirkılıç
Gülhane Training and Research Hospital
Author Profile

Abstract

A total of 130 patients who underwent robotic mitral valve surgery and conventional mitral valve surgery with full sternotomy between 2014 and 2020 were included in our study. All patients were divided into two groups; Group I, with 64 patients who underwent robotic mitral valve replacement, and Group II, with 66 patients with conventional full sternotomy. General demographic data (age, gender, body weights, etc.), comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral artery disease, hyperlipidemia, etc.), intraoperative variables (cardiopulmonary bypass times, cross-clamp times) postoperative ventilation times, drainage amounts, transfusion amount, inotropic need, revision, arrhythmia, intensive care and hospital stay times and mortality were analyzed retrospectively. According to conventional methods, robotic mitral valve replacement is an effective and reliable method, since total perfusion and cross clamp times are longer, drainage amount and blood transfusion need are less, ventilation time, intensive care and hospital stay time are shorter. Compared to conventional methods, robotic surgery is an increasingly widespread successful treatment option because of its early mobilization, rapid recovery, better cosmetic outcome and improving quality of life.

Peer review status:ACCEPTED

02 Oct 2020Submitted to Journal of Cardiac Surgery
05 Oct 2020Submission Checks Completed
05 Oct 2020Assigned to Editor
06 Oct 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
23 Oct 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
23 Oct 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
27 Oct 20201st Revision Received
30 Oct 2020Submission Checks Completed
30 Oct 2020Assigned to Editor
05 Nov 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
11 Nov 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
13 Nov 2020Editorial Decision: Accept