Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass on a Beating Heart: Initial Experience and Implications for the Future

Turner, William F.; Sloan, John H.

doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.03.112

Cited by 41 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, several authors have reported further experiences with robotically assisted CABG. [2][3][4] However, the average number of distal anastomoses in their reports, which ranged from 2.2 to 2.6, was lower than the number in our series. Our outcome of 4 anastomoses per patient compares favorably with the number of distal anastomotses in off-pump CABG through a steronotomy.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

Robotically Assisted Multivessel Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With the Use of Bilateral Internal Thoracic Arteries

Nishida

Yasuda

Watanabe

et al. 2007

Circ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 52%

Robotically Assisted Multivessel Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With the Use of Bilateral Internal Thoracic Arteries

Nishida

Yasuda

Watanabe

et al. 2007

Circ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…After exclusion of duplicated studies and 546 irrelevant articles based on abstracts and titles, 126 studies remained for full-text evaluation. Of these, 44 studies met the inclusion criteria, including nine studies in the TECAB off-pump group (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18); two studies in the TECAB on-pump group (19,20); and 16 studies in the robotic MIDCAB group (10,(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). One study provided separate data for both the TECAB offpump and robotic MIDCAB groups, and was included for analysis in both groups (10).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The digitized information from the computer control system was then relayed in real time to robotic manipulators, which were attached to the operating room table. These manipulators held the endoscopic instrument tips, which were inserted through small ports, performing all aspects of the CABG procedure without sternotomy or thoracotomy (31). Current limitations to the robotic CABG technique include its cost, heterogeneous clinical outcomes, limited training opportunities and evolving instrumentation for the endoscopic technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review on robotic coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Cao

Indraratna

Doyle

et al. 2016

Ann. Cardiothorac. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has been performed over the past decade. Despite encouraging results from selected centres, there is a paucity of robust clinical data to establish its clinical safety and efficacy. The present systematic review aimed to identify all relevant clinical data on robotic CABG. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality, and secondary endpoints included perioperative morbidities, anastomotic complications, and long-term survival.Methods: Electronic searches were performed using three online databases from their dates of inception to 2016. Relevant studies fulfilling the predefined search criteria were categorized according to surgical techniques as (I) totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass without cardiopulmonary bypass (TECAB offpump); (II) TECAB on-pump; and robotic-assisted mammary artery harvesting followed by minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (robotic MIDCAB).Results: The present systematic review identified 44 studies that fulfilled the study selection criteria, including nine studies in the TECAB off-pump group and 16 studies in the robotic MIDCAB group.Statistical analysis reported a pooled mortality of 1.7% for the TECAB off-pump group and 1.0% for the robotic MIDCAB group. Intraoperative details such as the number and location of grafts performed, operative times and conversion rates, as well as postoperative secondary endpoints such as morbidities, anastomotic complications and long-term outcomes were also summarized for both techniques.Conclusions: A number of technical, logistic and cost-related issues continue to hinder the popularization of the robotic CABG procedure. Current clinical evidence is limited by a lack of randomized controlled trials, heterogeneous definition of techniques and complications, as well as a lack of robust clinical followup with routine angiography. Nonetheless, the present systematic review reported acceptable perioperative mortality rates for selected patients at specialized centres. These results should be considered as a useful benchmark for future studies, until further data is reported in the form of randomized trials.

show abstract

“…The outcomes published for robotically assisted minimally invasive direct CABG approaches (Table 2) show no perioperative mortality and low complication rates. [12][13][14][15][16][17] …”

Section: Robotically Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Throughmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotically Assisted Totally Endoscopic Coronary Bypass Surgery

Bonatti

Schachner²,

Bonaros³

et al. 2011

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass on a Beating Heart: Initial Experience and Implications for the Future

Cited by 41 publications

References 5 publications

Robotically Assisted Multivessel Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With the Use of Bilateral Internal Thoracic Arteries

Robotically Assisted Multivessel Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting With the Use of Bilateral Internal Thoracic Arteries

A systematic review on robotic coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Robotically Assisted Totally Endoscopic Coronary Bypass Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About