Over the past decade, minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery (MICS) has grown in popularity. This growth has been driven, in part, by a desire to translate many of the observed benefits of minimal access surgery, such as decreased pain and reduced surgical trauma, to the cardiac surgical arena. Initial enthusiasm for MICS was tempered by concerns over reduced surgical exposure in highly complex operations and the potential for prolonged operative times and patient safety. With innovations in perfusion techniques, refinement of transthoracic echocardiography and the development of specialized surgical instruments and robotic technology, cardiac surgery was provided with the necessary tools to progress to less invasive approaches. However, much of the early literature on MICS focused on technical reports or small case series. The safety and feasibility of MICS have been demonstrated, yet questions remain regarding the relative efficacy of MICS over traditional sternotomy approaches. Recently, there has been a growth in the body of published literature on MICS long-term outcomes, with most reports suggesting that major cardiac operations that have traditionally been performed through a median sternotomy can be performed through a variety of minimally invasive approaches with equivalent safety and durability. In this article, we examine the technological advancements that have made MICS possible and provide an update on the major areas of cardiac surgery where MICS has demonstrated the most growth, with consideration of current and future directions.
Among elderly patients, minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with slightly longer crossclamp and bypass times but with equivalent morbidity and mortality and shorter hospitalization, decreased resource use, and improved postoperative functional status.
Background-Previous studies have demonstrated a relationship between increasing center volume and cardiac transplant outcomes. The purpose of this study was to confirm a relationship between post-heart transplant outcomes and center experience and to determine whether this relationship persists among low-and high-risk heart transplant recipient-donor pairs.
Pediatric donor hearts are regularly refused for donor quality with limited evidence as to which donor parameters are predictive of poor outcomes. We compare outcomes of recipients receiving hearts previously refused by other institutions for quality with the outcomes of recipients of primarily-offered hearts. Data for recipients aged ≤ 18 and their donors were obtained. Specific UNOS refusal codes were used to place recipients into refusal and non-refusal groups; demographics, morbidity, and mortality were compared. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank test was used to determine differences in graft survival. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to determine independent risk factors for post-operative mortality. From 7/1/2000-4/30/2011, 182 recipients were transplanted and included for analysis. 130 received a primarily-offered heart; 52 received a refused heart. No difference in post-operative complications or graft survival between the two groups (p=0.355) was found. Prior refusal was not an independent risk factor for recipient mortality. Analysis of this large pediatric cohort examining outcomes with quality-refused hearts shows that in-hospital morbidity and long-term mortality for recipients of quality-refused hearts is no different than recipients of primarily-offered hearts, suggesting that donor hearts previously refused for quality are not necessarily unsuitable for transplant and often show excellent outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.