Prevention of Unilateral Pulmonary Edema Complicating Robotic Mitral Valve Operations

Moss, Emmanuel; Halkos, Michael E.; Binongo, José; Murphy, Douglas A.

doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.05.100

Cited by 27 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Kim et al 22 showed no difference in these parameters between patients with SL and DL endotracheal intubation. In most reports on robotic surgery, patients are extubated immediately using the fast track protocol and prolonged intubation is uncommon 2‐11,16,19 . But, in our study, intubation time was significantly longer in patients with DL intubation.…”

Section: Commentscontrasting

confidence: 50%

“…It has been reported that the incidence of bronchial injuries dropped from 23.8% in the DL endotracheal intubation group to 10.3% in the SL intubation group 23 . In addition, lung isolation may lead to atelectasis, pneumonia, and unilateral lung edema 15‐19 …”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Currently, DL endotracheal intubation with lung isolation is the standard for robotic cardiac surgery in high volume robotic cardiac centers 1‐3,10,11,15‐19 . This approach has been applied in video‐assisted cardiothoracic surgery to ensure lung exclusion 20‐26 .…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In these circumstances, multiple intubation attempts may lead to tracheobronchial injury, bleeding, hypoxemia, and bronchospasm 12‐14 . Moreover, fatal pulmonary events such as unilateral lung edema may be a catastrophe and increase the length of hospital stay and cost 15‐19 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, right‐sided unilateral pulmonary edema developed in several patients. With the goal of providing better outcomes, the studies and alternative techniques in minimally invasive cardiac surgery were reviewed 1‐26 . The literature on robotic cardiac surgery presented no recommendations about the use of SL endotracheal tubes without lung isolation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Robotic‐assisted cardiac surgery without lung isolation utilizing single‐lumen endotracheal tube intubation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study assessed the feasibility and outcomes of performing robotic cardiac surgery without lung isolation using single‐lumen (SL) endotracheal tube intubation. Methods Between 2013 and 2017, 132 patients underwent robotically‐assisted atrial septal defect closure. A retrospective analysis was performed of 23 patients (11 males, mean age 30.9 ± 5 years) who underwent robotic surgery with double‐lumen (DL) endotracheal tube intubation (group 1) compared with 109 patients (57 males, mean age 32.4 ± 7.5 years) undergoing the same procedure with SL endotracheal intubation (group 2). The patient groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, operative data, and complications. The technical feasibility of the robotic procedure without lung isolation was evaluated. Results There were no mortality, intraoperative complication, and conversion. Mean total anesthesia time was significantly decreased in the SL intubation group (238.3 ± 22.4 vs 227.2 ± 21.2 minutes; P = .025). First‐pass intubation success was significantly higher in the SL intubation group (17 [73.9%] vs 98 [89.9%] patients; P = .032). Mean ventilation time (10.9 ± 5.3 hours), intensive care unit stay (16.8 ± 10.1 hours), and the length of hospital stay (3.8 ± 1.2 days) was significantly decreased in patients with SL tube (P < .05). Unilateral reexpansion pulmonary edema was observed in five (21.7%) patients with DL tube, whereas no patient with SL tube had this complication. Conclusions SL endotracheal tube intubation without lung isolation is a feasible and safe airway alternative in robotic cardiac procedures. This approach resulted in shorter anesthesia time, ventilation time and the length of hospital stay. Port placement and robotic set‐up can be uneventfully performed without lung isolation.

show abstract

Section: Commentscontrasting

confidence: 50%

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Robotic‐assisted cardiac surgery without lung isolation utilizing single‐lumen endotracheal tube intubation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Anesthetic Considerations for Non-Robotic-and Robotic Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery

Ackermann

Zakhary

Ender

2020

Evidence-Based Practice in Perioperative Cardiac Anesthesia and Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Propensity-matched analysis of robotic versus sternotomy approaches for mitral valve replacement

Yan

Wang

et al. 2023

J Robotic Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare early and medium-term outcomes between robotic and sternotomy approaches for mitral valve replacement (MVR). Clinical data of 1393 cases who underwent MVR between January 2014 and January 2023 were collected and stratified into robotic MVR (n = 186) and conventional sternotomy MVR (n = 1207) groups. The baseline data of the two groups of patients were corrected by the propensity score matching (PSM) method. After matching, the baseline characteristics were not significant different between the two groups (standardized mean difference < 10%). Moreover, the rates of operative mortality (P = 0.663), permanent stroke (P = 0.914), renal failure (P = 0.758), pneumonia (P = 0.722), and reoperation (P = 0.509) were not significantly different. Operation, CPB and cross-clamp time were shorter in the sternotomy group. On the other hand, ICU stay time, post-operative LOS, intraoperative transfusion, and intraoperative blood loss were shorter or less in the robot group. Operation, CPB, and cross-clamp time in robot group were all remarkably improved with experience. Finally, all-cause mortality (P = 0.633), redo mitral valve surgery (P = 0.739), and valve-related complications (P = 0.866) in 5 years of follow-up were not different between the two groups. Robotic MVR is safe, feasible, and reproducible for carefully selected patients with good operative outcomes and medium-term clinical outcomes.

show abstract

Prevention of Unilateral Pulmonary Edema Complicating Robotic Mitral Valve Operations

Cited by 27 publications

References 21 publications

Robotic‐assisted cardiac surgery without lung isolation utilizing single‐lumen endotracheal tube intubation

Robotic‐assisted cardiac surgery without lung isolation utilizing single‐lumen endotracheal tube intubation

Anesthetic Considerations for Non-Robotic-and Robotic Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery

Propensity-matched analysis of robotic versus sternotomy approaches for mitral valve replacement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About