clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00272675.

Poststernotomy mediastinitis (PM) is a serious and potentially lethal condition with an overall incidence varying from 0.4-5%. There is little consensus on the ideal management of PM. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the effectiveness of topical negative pressure (TNP) therapy vs. traditional closed drainage techniques (CDT) as a treatment modality for PM. We reviewed the data of 10,467 patients who underwent median sternotomy between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 2003. During this period 63 patients were treated for PM. Twenty-nine of these patients were treated with TNP and 34 with conventional CDT. Primary points of interest were: treatment modalities, mortality, surgical site infection recurrence and, duration of therapy and hospital stay. In this series, the total incidence of poststernotomy mediastinitis was 0.6% with high morbidity rates. In the TNP group, lower rates of recurring infection, therapeutic failure and fewer defects at discharge were seen (P<0.05). In conclusion, the results of our series add further data to the knowledge that PM is an important cause of morbidity and mortality. TNP is a safe and adequate treatment modality for treating PM.

BackgroundEuropean surgeons were the first worldwide to use robotic techniques in cardiac surgery and major steps in procedure development were taken in Europe. After a hype in the early 2000s case numbers decreased but due to technological improvements renewed interest can be noted. We assessed the current activities and outcomes in robotically assisted cardiac surgery on the European continent.MethodsData were collected in an international anonymized registry of 26 European centers with a robotic cardiac surgery program.ResultsDuring a 4-year period (2016–2019), 2,563 procedures were carried out [30.0% female, 58.5 (15.4) years old, EuroSCORE II 1.56 (1.74)], including robotically assisted coronary bypass grafting (n = 1266, 49.4%), robotic mitral or tricuspid valve surgery (n = 945, 36.9%), isolated atrial septal defect closure (n = 225, 8.8%), left atrial myxoma resection (n = 54, 2.1%), and other procedures (n = 73, 2.8%). The number of procedures doubled during the study period (from n = 435 in 2016 to n = 923 in 2019). The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time in pump assisted cases was 148.6 (63.5) min and the myocardial ischemic time was 88.7 (46.1) min. Conversion to larger thoracic incisions was required in 56 cases (2.2%). Perioperative rates of revision for bleeding, stroke, and mortality were 56 (2.2%), 6 (0.2 %), and 27 (1.1%), respectively. Median postoperative hospital length of stay was 6.6 (6.6) days.ConclusionRobotic cardiac surgery case numbers in Europe are growing fast, including a large spectrum of procedures. Conversion rates are low and clinical outcomes are favorable, indicating safe conduct of these high-tech minimally invasive procedures.

OBJECTIVES Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has been performed increasingly for the past 2 decades; however, large comparative studies on short- and long-term outcomes have been lacking. This study aims to compare short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing MIMVS versus median sternotomy (MST) based on real-world data, extracted from the Netherlands Heart Registration. METHODS Patients undergoing mitral valve surgery, with or without tricuspid valve, atrial septal closure and/or rhythm surgery between 2013 and 2018 were included. Primary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality and long-term survival. Propensity score matching analyses were performed. RESULTS In total, 2501 patients were included, 1776 were operated through MST and 725 using an MIMVS approach. After propensity matching, no significant differences in baseline characteristics persisted. There were no between-group differences in 30-day mortality (1.1% vs 0.7%, P = 0.58), 1-year mortality (2.6% vs 2.1%, P = 0.60) or perioperative stroke rate (1.1% vs 0.6%, P = 0.25) between MST and MIMVS, respectively. An increased rate of postoperative arrhythmia was observed in the MST group (31.3% vs 22.4%, P &lt; 0.001). A higher repair rate was found in the MST group (80.9% vs 76.3%, P = 0.04). No difference in 5-year survival was found between the matched groups (95.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.49). Freedom from mitral reintervention was 97.9% for MST and 96.8% in the MIMVS group (P = 0.01), without a difference in reintervention-free survival (P = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS The MIMVS approach is as safe as the sternotomy approach for the surgical treatment of mitral valve disease. However, it comes at a cost of a reduced repair rate and more reinterventions in the long term, in the real-world.

Negative pressure wound therapy is a concept introduced initially to assist in the treatment of chronic open wounds. Recently, there has been growing interest in using the technique on closed incisions after surgery to prevent potentially severe surgical site infections and other wound complications in high-risk patients. Negative pressure wound therapy uses a negative pressure unit and specific dressings that help to hold the incision edges together, redistribute lateral tension, reduce edema, stimulate perfusion, and protect the surgical site from external infectious sources. Randomized, controlled studies of negative pressure wound therapy for closed incisions in orthopedic settings (which also is a clean surgical procedure in absence of an open fracture) have shown the technology can reduce the risk of wound infection, wound dehiscence, and seroma, and there is accumulating evidence that it also improves wound outcomes after cardiothoracic surgery. Identifying at-risk individuals for whom prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy would be most cost-effective remains a challenge; however, several risk-stratification systems have been proposed and should be evaluated more fully. The recent availability of a single-use, closed incision management system offers surgeons a convenient and practical means of delivering negative pressure wound therapy to their high-risk patients, with excellent wound outcomes reported to date. Although larger, randomized, controlled studies will help to clarify the precise role and benefits of such a system in cardiothoracic surgery, limited initial evidence from clinical studies and from the authors’ own experiences appears promising. In light of the growing interest in this technology among cardiothoracic surgeons, a consensus meeting, which was attended by a group of international experts, was held to review existing evidence for negative pressure wound therapy in the prevention of wound complications after surgery and to provide recommendations on the optimal use of negative pressure wound therapy on closed median sternal incisions after cardiothoracic surgery.

Surgical site infection (SSI) remains an important complication of cardiac surgery. Prevention is important, as SSI is associated with high mortality and morbidity rates. Incisional care is an important daily issue for surgeons. However, there is still scant scientific evidence on which guidelines can be based. A randomized clinical trial was performed to compare two options for postoperative incisional care. Patients undergoing sternotomy for cardiothoracic surgery were eligible. To protect an incision from exogenous contamination or direct inoculation by endogenous pathogens, the study group received an adhesive drape, impermeable to water and air. The control group was treated with a water- and air-permeable absorbent dressing. Primary outcome measure was SSI. Between March 2003 and January 2005, 1,185 patients were included. Both groups were comparable for base-line characteristics. No significant difference was found in the incidence of sternal SSI between groups (2.6 vs. 3.3%). In our study, an incisional-care program using a sterile, impermeable adhesive drape did not perform better than an absorbent dressing in reducing SSI after cardiothoracic surgery. In our view, future studies in the field of prevention of SSI should concentrate on other areas of interest.

Negative-pressure wound therapy, commercially known as vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.C.®) therapy, has become one of the most popular (and efficacious) interim (prior to flap reconstruction) or definite methods of managing deep sternal wound infection. Complications such as profuse bleeding, which may occur during negative-pressure therapy but not necessarily due to it, are often attributed to a single factor and reported as such. However, despite the wealth of clinical experience internationally available, information regarding certain simple considerations is still lacking. Garnering information on all the factors that could possibly influence the outcome has become more difficult due to a (fortunate) decrease in the incidence of deep sternal wound infection. If more insight is to be gained from fewer clinical cases, then various potentially confounding factors should be fully disclosed before complications can be attributed to the technique itself or improvements to negative-pressure wound therapy for deep sternal wound infection can be accepted as evidence-based and the guidelines for its use adapted. The authors propose the adoption of a simple checklist in such cases.

No abstract