Comparison of Postoperative Outcomes Between Robotic Mitral Valve
Surgery and Conventional Mitral Valve Surgery
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.