Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
Cambio de actitud
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.



Download to read offline

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 4 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 6 2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 Robotic Heart Surgery 6 2.3 Open Heart Surgery 8 2.4 ComparisonofMinimallyInvasive HeartSurgeries (MIS) andRoboticMinimally Invasive Heart Surgery 9 2.5 Mitral Valve Regurgitation(MVr) 11 2.6 Atrial Septal Defect(ASD) 14 2.7 Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) 16 2.8 SUMMARY 18 3 METHODOLOGY 19 4 DISCUSSION 22 4.1 Introduction 22 4.2 Operative Period 23 4.2.1 Anaesthesia 23 4.2.2 Operative Time 24 Valve Repair (MVR) 25 Atrial Septal Defect (ASD) 26 Coronary Artery Surgery (CAS) 27 4.3 Postoperative Period 28 4.3.1 Hospitalization & Intensive care unit stay 28 Mitral valve repair 28 Atrial Septal Defect 30 Coronary Artery Surgery 34 4.4 Learning Curve 36 4.5 Economical Background 37 4.7 Conclusion 38 5.0 CONCLUSION 40 6.0 REFERENCES 42
  2. 2. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Robotic Heart Surgery (Specially designed console and surgical instruments with thin robotics) 6 Figure 2 Design of Cardioarm 7 Figure 3 Comparison of incisions in open-heart surgery (8-12 inch) and robotic surgery (3 small incisions) 8 Figure 4 Normal heart-Mitral Valve regurgitation of a heart 11 Figure 5 The wall, whichdivides the heart into left upper (B) and right upper chamber (A), is atrial septum. The unnatural blood flowsthrough atrial septum in a heart (ASD) 14 Figure 6 Angioplasty surgery with stent replacement 16 Figure 7 Coronary bypass surgery 17
  3. 3. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Comparison of MIS and Robotic MIS in terms of limitations and benefits 10 Table 2 Comparative analysis of Mitral Valve Repair 13 Table 3: Comparative analysis of Atrial Septal DefectRepair 16 Table 4 The anaesthesia learning curve decrease by training 23 Table 5 Operative results while Mitral Valve Repair 25 Table 6: The comparative analysis of ASD among sternotomy, MINI (preferred minimally invasive surgery technique for ASD) and RHS 26 Table 7 The comparative analysis of CAS among Sternotomy, MIS and RHS 27 Table 8 PostoperativeResults after Mitral Valve Repair 28 Table 9 the comparison of the post-operative results between Sternotomy and RHS 29 Table 10 the comparison of postoperative results in ASD among Sternotomy,MINI and RHS 30 Table 11 the data set shows, that the pain distribution among Sternotomy, MINI and RHS 32 Table 12 the comparison of the pain distribution among Sternotomy, MINI and RHS by a histogram 32 Table 13 Pain distributions in three types of surgeries after the hospital stay 33 Table 14 the comparison of the postoperative results among Sternotomy, MIS and RHS 34 Table 15 Decrease of the operative time of same operation (at same complexity level) by training 36 Table 16: the cost comparison between RHS and Open-heart surgery while postoperative period 37
  4. 4. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 6th 1953, the first successful open heart surgery which was secundum atrial septal defect repair was conducted by Dr.John Gibbons, who was the inventor of the lung-heart machine at Jefferson University Medical Centre (Cohn, 2003; 2168). As stated by Eugene et al. (2001); Davies and Hollman (2002; 509) type of heart surgeries and also number of open heart surgeries have risen after the first successful open heart surgery. According to Eugene et al. (2001) in 1955 Dr. John Kirklin began first successful series of open-heart surgeries by heart-lung machine and in 1967 Dr. Earl Wynands published one of the first articles on anaesthetic management and coronary artery surgery. Due to increasing surgical trials after 1970’s for cardiac surgery, heart surgery became widespread and has been facilitated. In 1980’s maturation in heart surgery has been started and between 1990-99 the minimally invasive surgery technique has been developed (ibid). Moreover, in order to improve accuracy and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery, Robotic heart surgery (RHS) has been developed. RHS is a type of minimally invasive surgery which has computer- enhanced instruments to provide enhanced surgical dexterity. The benefits of robotic telemanupilation systems have been hypothesized to result from the removal of tremor, improved vision and precise manipulation in confined body cavities (Zenati, 2001). The first robotic heart surgical procedure began in 1997 with a basic, voice-activated, camera-positioning robot (Aesop™). Better still, da Vinci surgical telemanupilation unit has been developed in 1999 and first clinical trials had been conducted in Paris and Leipzig. As stated by Chitwood (2011; 691) regarding these trials, the benefits of Robotic systems became clear that, the advantages were too important to be ignored. Therefore, the robotic technology continued to evolve. As da Vinci Robotic system continues to advance, Acrobat, TGS (Rio) and Sensei robotic systems have been developed (ibid). Da Vinci telemanupilation unit is the most common robotic system in healthcare. According to Intuitive Surgical, 205,000 da Vinci-assisted procedures were
  5. 5. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 5 performed in 2009, which were increased 51% since 2008. (Gomes, 2011; 261). The health care sector is progressing due to influences of evolving technology and moreover robotic telemanupilation systems for surgeries have turn into an essential component of many surgical procedures and fields. Integration of robotic telemanupilaton technology in cardiac surgery has been recognized as significant benefits for patient outcomes, including a smaller incision, decrease in pain, shorter hospital stay and faster recovery. (Reger and Janhke, 2003). The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of robotic heart surgery in coronary artery surgery, atrial septal defect repair and mitral valve repair in comparison to conventional open-heart surgery and ordinal minimally invasive technique. In the first section of the study, a detailed literature review will be provided as background knowledge for three different type of surgeries and three different type of surgical procedures and moreover, the surgeries will be compared between minimally invasive technique and conventional open heart surgery by meta-analysis of different researches. Subsequently, in discussion the meta-analysis of studies will be examined in terms of anaesthesia, operative time, postoperative time and cost to make comparison among three types of surgeries. Finally, in conclusion part study will give final results and future recommendations, depending on limitations in operative-time and learning curve of the robotic heart surgery.
  6. 6. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 6 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction A variety of heart diseases have been increasing day-by-day all over the world. An evaluated 17.3 million people in 2008 died from heart diseases. This evaluation represents 30% of deaths all over the world. Over 7.3 million people suffered and eventually died because of coronary heart disease while the 6.2 million died because of stroke, which occurs when one of the blood pumping vessels in the heart is clogged. The stroke cut off the blood supply of a brain part. The 80% of heart disease deaths take place in middle and low-income countries where the public is disproportionally affected. There is no gender differentiation in having disease. The prediction of next decade regarding heart diseases deaths will increase attain to 23.3 million in 2030. The causes of most heart diseases are; high blood pressure, use of tobacco, unhealthy done diet and obesity, increased lipids, lack of physical activity, diabetes (WHO,2013). The increase of heart disease rates opened a new era instead of conventional surgery (open heart surgery). The era is use of robotics in surgery. 2.2 Robotic Heart Surgery Figure 1 Robotic Heart Surgery (Specially designedconsole andsurgical instruments with thin robotics) (John Hopkins Medicine, 2013)
  7. 7. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 7 If a Robotic Heart Surgery is compared with an open (traditional, conventional) surgery (sternotomy), the utilities of surgery done by robotic assistance will be decreased fissure with small scaring type, decreased trauma after surgery on the patient, decreased pain, lesser hospital stay, lesser use of postoperative medications, less blood loss, shorter recovery, decreased risk of complications and quick return to daily life (Cleveland Clinic, 2013). A Robotic Heart Surgery (RHS) is a sort of minimally invasive heart surgery fulfilled by a cardiac surgeon. The surgeon performs the surgery by specially designed console like a computer to check surgical equipment’s on slim robotic arms. Figure 2 shows the specially designed console and surgical instruments. These technologies provide the chance to perform the three types of complex heart surgeries One of the cutting-edge developments in heart surgery is Cardioarm. Cardioarm (single port surgery); is a snake-like device which can travel to the target areas through insertion beneath the sternum and solve the problems about tissue that disturb heart rhythm. The cardioarm is able to do applications such as ablation, injection of stem cell or other therapeutic techniques, ligation of the left atrial appendage mapping, pacemaker lead instalment and biopsy (Ponnusamy et al., 2011). Figure 2 Design of Cardioarm (Zenati and Mahvash, 2012: 87)
  8. 8. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 8 2.3 Open Heart Surgery Figure 3 Comparison of incisions in open-heart surgery (8-12 inch) and robotic surgery (3 small incisions) (UC Davis Medical (n.d.)) In an open-heart surgery, eight to twelve inches incisions will be cut in the patient's chest by the surgeon, which is 5 times larger than a robotic heart surgery (RHS). The figure 2 compares the size of incisions between open and robotic heart surgery. After large incisions, the surgery cuts through the whole or part of breastbone to see the heart of the patient. After the heart of the patient has been seen, a heart-lung machine is employed. The machine let the blood move away from the heart so that the surgeon can see the heart properly. The surgeon to create a different path around the artery, which was blocked, uses a healthy vein or artery. At the end of the surgery, the surgeon with a disposable wire stitches the breastbone where it is left inside the body. This procedure called as also sternotomy (Medlineplus, 2014) This paper establishes to inform about three major and suitable cardiac surgeries by robotics. The suitable heart surgeries are; Mitral valve repair (MVR), Coronary artery surgery (CAS), Atrial Septal Defect (ASD) repair. The purpose of this literature review is to compare minimally invasive surgery and robotic heart surgery and moreover to dissect the operative and post-operative results of minimally invasive heart surgery and conventional heart surgery. Therefore three types of suitable cardiac surgeries will be analysed in terms of duration while the surgery (cross-clamp time, bypass time) and the hospitalization.
  9. 9. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 9 2.4 Comparison of Minimally Invasive Heart Surgeries (MIS) and Robotic Minimally Invasive Heart Surgery Although the MIS is more beneficial when it is compared to traditional surgery, due to lesser tissue scar and surgical complications, decreased pain and quicker recovery, the specific format of MIS instrumentation also places significant restrictions on by hand controlling and the coordination between hand and eye during surgery. During Minimally Invasive Heart Surgery (MIS) 3 to 5 small incisions (about 0,4 inch wide) is generally required to conduct the surgery and at least two long-handled tissue equipment, such as grippers and retractors is needed. However the application of long hand-held tools may not give an improved outcome because surgeon’s wrist joint has decreased ability through the stable incision port while the procedure and may limit the lateral motions of the instrument mile, representative like a fulcrum (inversion and scaling of movements, altered sensation of forces due to mechanical advantage and friction at the incision point) or remote centre of motion (RCM). The hand of surgeon’s movement and directions are for this reason inverted at the equipment tip and motion (Vitiello et al., 2012). The Robotic MIS outweighs those limitations. The benefits which overcome the limitations are in displaying; 3-D broad-angle display cameras and elevated-resolution stereoscopic (two photos of identical objects, which have two different angels, are superposed together to create an effect of solidity and depth) displays. Structural and functional 3-D displaying methods have been combined for increased tissue description and further navigational traces. The robotics instruments give an additional ability of artfulness to permit for increased flexibility and by hand controllable artfulness (Vitiello et al.., 2012). The table 1 compares the properties of the MIS with RHS. During MIS, visualization of the heart is limited, whereas in RHS immersive 3-D monitoring and high resolution enhances visualization significantly. The articulated instruments ignore the Fulcrum effect and create wide range of surgical ability by instruments in RHS due to motion scaling and tremor filtering. The heart surgeries last long, so the disadvantages such as tiredness and physical separation occur often. However the ergonomic design of RHS overcome these
  10. 10. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 10 Traditional MIS Robotic MIS • Poor depthperception • 3-D endoscopiccameras • Highresolution Stereoscopicdisplays • Poor visual-motor coordination • Immersive visualization • Articulated instruments • Fulcrumeffect • Articulated instruments • Motionscaling • Tremorfiltering • Tiredness • Ergonomicremote surgical console • Physical separation • Hands interactionwith tissue • ‘Drive-by-wire’ instruments disadvantages. Furthermore, drive-by-drive property of telemanupilations systems can provide 97% accurate surgery. Consequently, the table shows, that the advantages of RHS are as much as they cannot be ignored and actually these tables outweigh the limitations of MIS (Vitiello et al.., 2012). Table 1 Comparison of MIS and Robotic MIS in terms of limitations and benefits (Vitiello et al., 2012)
  11. 11. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 11 2.5 Mitral Valve Regurgitation (MVr) First of the three complications is the mitral valve regurgitation. Mitral valve is spotted among left heart chambers (left atrium and left ventricle). Mitral valve surgeries procedure is replace or repair of the mitral valve. Due to improper functioning of heart valves mitral valve diseases occurs. This is occasioned in two cases; by valve stenosis (tough, fused, rigid leaflets, restricting flow of blood) or by valve regurgitation (heart valve which leaks blood, happens when the valves do not shut properly (Mayoclinic, 2014) .In summary, advantages of minimally invasive mitral surgery compared to sternotomy include increased breathing function, decreased loss of blood and transfusion, great visualisation and expanded view angle of heart valve, decreased pain, shorter hospital stay, quick recovery, and aesthetic appeal, in a female incision possible to be concealed in the right breast crease (ibid). The potential drawbacks of MIS are decreased display of the heart, time of the operation and surgical learning curve. (Woo et al., 2007). RHS solves the challenge of decreased display by magnified high-definition 3-D view on a video monitor while the surgeon from an operating console is conducting the surgery. (Mayoclinic, 2014). Figure 4 Normal heart-Mitral Valve regurgitation of a heart (Mayoclinic, 2014)
  12. 12. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 12 Table 2 Comparative analysis of Mitral Valve Repair In 2010, Raanani et al., published a paper in which these authors described that, the duration of the operation; the bypass times and the cross- clamp times were longer in MIS patients. In post-operative period the hospitalization of MIS patients was 5.3 ± 2.5 days whereas in sternotomy 5.7 ± Operative Time (Min) Cross- Clamp Time (Min) Bypass Time (Min) Hospitalization (Days) MIS 258 ± 41.8 253.9 ± 50.3 83.7 ± 1.9 142.6 ± 26.5 141.7 ± 32.1 139.7 ± 2.6 93.7 ± 31.3 88 ± 28.7 5.3 ± 2.5 7.76 ± 0.37 Raanani et al (2010) Iribarne et al (2010) Sundermann et al (2014) Dogan et al (2005) Sternotomy 210.7 ± 34.4 239.4 ± 55.5 79.6 ± 1.5 107.7 ± 25.2 132.6 ± 35.6 117.1 ± 2.0 74.2 ± 27.5 84.8 ± 24.4 5.7 ± 2.5 9.81 ± 0.61 Raanani et al (2010) Iribarne et al (2010) Sundermann et al (2014) Dogan et al (2005)
  13. 13. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 13 2.5 days. Further reports within 100 months show that, 82% of MIS patients and 91% of sternotomy patients were free from mitral regurgitation. The surgeries were conducted on 143 patients (61 MIS and 82 Sternotomy)(Raanani et al., 2010). This view is supported by Iribarne et al. (2010) who indicates that the elapsed time for bypass and cross-clamp in MIS group were remarkably longer than sternotomy. The study of Iribarne was among 1121 patients (573 MIS and 548 sternotomy) and indicates that, the bypass time was 117.1 ± 2.0 minutes in sternotomy patients and whereas in MIS patients 139.7 ± 2.6 minutes and the duration of cross-clamp 79.6 ± 1.5 minutes in sternotomy whereas in MIS 83.7 ± 1.9 minutes. The hospitalization among sternotomy patients was 9.81 ± 0.61 days whereas 7.76 ± 0.37 days among MIS patients. There is no remarkable difference in long-term results (Iribarne et al., 2010). The meta-analysis of Sundermann et al. (2014) also indicates, that MIS has longer hospitalization compared to sternotomy; 253.9 ± 50.3 against 239.4 ± 55.5 minutes. The elapsed time for cross-clamp and bypass in MIS were 142.6 ± 26.5 and 93.7 ± 31.3 minutes, whereas 107.7 ± 25.2 and 74.2 ± 27.5 minutes in Sternotomy. Furthermore, Dogan et al. (2005) found that RHS has longer operative time than MIS. This study was among 35 patients. The data set indicates, that when MIS compared to Sternotomy, it has longer operative time 253.9 ± 50.3 against 239.4 ± 55.5 minutes, longer cross-clamp time 141.7± 32.1 against 132.6 ± 35.6 and longer bypass time 88 ± 28.7 against 84.8 ± 24.4. There was no mortality in all surgeries. Those papers show, that although MIS has longer operative time compared to sternotomy, the elapsed time in hospital was shorter in MIS patients. Moreover, MIS has better results in terms of trauma from incision, duration in intensive care unit, less blood loss. The evidence presented in this section suggests that, MIS has significantly better post-operative results compared to sternotomy in Mitral Valve Repair.
  14. 14. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 14 2.6 Atrial Septal Defect(ASD) Second major surgery is Atrial Septal Defect surgery. When a hole or a defect occurs between the upper chambers of the heart, it causes an unnatural blood flow. Therefore, the oxygen-rich and the oxygen-indigent blood begin to combine instead of being kept divided, so combined blood flows to lung. Consequently it leads to Atrial Septal Defect (ASD). The first type of Atrial wall defects is Secundum ASD, which called central defects of the atrial wall. This is the ASD, which has the highest frequency. The defect is found in the in the middle of the atrial septum. 8 of 10 infants have been born with ASD, however at least half of these defects will be cured without intervention (Great Ormond Street Hospital (NHS), 2012). Secondly, primum ASD which called low defects of the atrial wall. The defect is found in the lower part of the atrial septum. This type of ASD happens together with an unusualness of the mitral valve and don’t close by itself. (Great Ormond Street Hospital (NHS), 2012) Lastly, third type of the defect is the sinus venosus ASD that called high defects of the atrial wall. This defect is located in the upper of the atrial septum. A B The superior vena cava Figure 5 The wall, which divides the heart into left upper (B) and right upper chamber (A), is atrial septum. The unnatural blood flows through atrial septum in a heart (ASD) (The University of Minnesota, 2013).
  15. 15. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 15 This location is near the superior vena cava, which brings the oxygen-indigent blood into the heart. (Great Ormond Street Hospital (NHS), 2012) When the surgeon visualizes the heart during surgery, if the defect is small, he stitches the atrial septum to shut the hole, if the defect is large, the surgeon take a small piece from the pericardium (the sac that surrounds the heart) and uses the piece of tissue as a patch to shut the hole. Mini-thoractomy (MINI) is a minimally invasive surgery method and it is applicable with and without robotics. In this type of heart surgery MINI is commonly using instead of sternotomy and robotic minimally invasive technique. The procedure is implemented by 3cm for video camera and sutures and 6 cm incision between 3rd and 4th rib (Cleveland Clinic; 2013). Table 3: Comparative analysis of Atrial Septal Defect Repair (Losenno et al., 2013) The table 3 illustrates that, the study was among 73 ASD patients (MINI n=51 , STERN n=22) and outcomes of MINI and sternotomy were approximately equal. (Losenno et al., 2013) The MINI patients stayed in intensive care unit 1.2 ± 1.2 days whereas, the sternotomy patients 1.7 ± 2.2 days. The hospitalization in MINI patients is 5.1 ± 2.2 days on the other hand 6.3 ± 2.2 days in sternotomy. A survey among 571 patients published by Mihos et al. (2013) claims that the intensive care unit stay and hospitalization in MIS were average
  16. 16. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 16 45 hours and 6 days whereas in sternotomy 53 hours and 7 days. Therefore, these results indicate that there is no significant difference between MINI and Sternotomy surgeries in ASD. The operative period is longer among MINI patients. (Losenno et al., 2013); (Mihos et al., 2013). Overall, both papers show, that there is a slight difference between MINI and Sternotomy patients. The difference occurs due to less blood loss and less trauma in incision. 2.7 Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) The third major surgery is Coronary artery disease (CAD). In CAD, if medicines or other non-surgical methods do not solve the problems of heart or reduce the risk of heart attack, surgeons will recommend surgery for coronary artery disease (CAD). When the blood contains calcium, fat, cholesterol and other compounds, a plaque occurs inside the coronary arteries, therefore it blocks the procuration of oxygen-rich blood an consequently leads to CAD. There are two common techniques to treat CAD angioplasty and bypass surgery. (Choices, 2014) Coronary balloon angioplasty is implemented from the patient’s groin with a small opening. The technique involves pushing a tiny threaded ended tube Figure 6 Angioplasty surgery with stent replacement (MyHealth Alberta, 2014)
  17. 17. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 17 with a thin balloon into the to the clogged or narrowed coronary arteries. The procedure followed by an inflation of the balloon inside of an artery to eliminate the plaque by pushing it outward. By doing so the artery channels are widened and blood flow is restored. If it is necessary the doctor may determine to place a stent (metal mesh like small tube) into the coronary artery to enable free blood flow. (daVincisurgery , 2013 ) Coronary bypass surgery can be practiced by traditional open surgery or minimally invasive surgery. In both ways the purpose is to allow improved blood flow to the heart. During a traditional open surgery, a large chest incision takes place and a heart-lung machine is being used in exchange to stop the heart to ensure a stable area for the surgeon to operate. However; during a minimally invasive surgery only small cuts are made and the heart is left to continue beating (daVincisurgery, 2013) Paredes et al (2013) holds the view that MIS has better results than open-heart surgery and indicate that, the duration while bypass surgery time was 102,90 ± 41,68 minutes among minimally invasive patients whereas 81.37 ± 25.41 minutes among sternotomy patients. Elapsed time while cross clamping Figure 7 Coronary bypass surgery (Chan, 2012)
  18. 18. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 18 was 77.31 ± 29.20 minutes in MIS whereas 63.45 ± 17.71 minutes in Sternotomy. In the same vein, a study by Mächler et al. (1999) notes that, the elapsed time during cross-clamp has a mean time of 60 minutes in sternotomy whereas in MIS 84 minutes. The bypass duration in MIS was an average 113 minutes, however in sternotomy was 92 minutes. The overall survival rate in sternotomy was 90% whereas in MIS 97%. Both paper also suggest that, the post-operative results of MIS is better in terms of trauma from incision, duration in intensive care unit, less blood loss. As a result, even though the MIS has longer operative time compared to sternotomy, it has slightly better post- operative results in coronary artery surgery. 2.8 SUMMARY To sum up, this literature review introduced the three surgery types, which are implemented to treat for three common heart diseases (Coronary artery diseases, Mitral valve regurgitation and Atrial septal defect). It described not only the implementation of the open-heart surgery, minimally invasive surgery and robotic heart surgery but also it compared open-heart surgery with minimally invasive surgery in terms of effectiveness. Although, the incision during open-heart surgery is larger than minimally invasive technique, the postoperative results in ASD repair and in CAS are approximately similar. Minimally Invasive Surgery has singularly better post-operative results in MVR. Overall, RHS have higher efficiency in terms of postoperative results rather than the open-heart surgery and minimally surgery, which will be examined in discussion. Conversely, RHS has longer operative period and it has a substantial learning curve for surgeons and anaesthesiologists. The RHS is safer and more feasible in terms of decreased pain, lesser hospital stay, lesser use of postoperative medications, less blood loss, shorter recovery, decreased risk of complications and quick return to daily life. Moreover a new robotic technology has been developed to undergo the heart surgeries through only one incision, which is called Cardioarm as stated in the literature review. In the meantime, the Cardioarm is not applicable for any of the three surgeries, but development studies are still progressing.
  19. 19. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 19 3 METHODOLOGY The centre of attraction of this secondary research paper is a comparative assessment of three different heart complications types for three different cardiac surgeries to determine the efficacy of RHS among three surgeries. In ethical aspects of this research to avoid bias, finding, reading and evaluating of evidences, peer review, personal judgement, data analysis were objectively conducted for this research. Since, this report was conferred as study for secondary research, academic journals, scientific books and meta- analysis from case studies were contributed as a source of knowledge in order to compare the three surgeries. Due to the nature of scientific research, a critical evaluation and objective point of view were provided during the reading process. The topic was determined because of the benefits and crucial properties of RHS. Therefore three utmost important heart complications have been chosen to compare among RHS, MIS and traditional sternotomy. The focal point of this secondary research was derived from a general study of cardiac surgery areas within the healthcare/medical professions. The knowledge of those surgeries was obtained from articles of the widely recognised and peer-reviewed academic reliable sources. To construct an effective structure for this secondary research, the literatures and the meta- analysis of the sources were assessed according to their impact factor, relevancy and necessity before sorting them as references. The numbers in brackets present impact factor scores of journals. Firstly, Eugene et al. (2001) provided the historical knowledge of open- heart surgery from beginning till the development of MIS. Subsequently, Zenati (2001) provided clear information about RHS and its origins. Chitwood (2011) described the development of robotic telemanupilation technology. Finally, Reger and Jahnke (2003) defined RHS from general perspective and also noted the positive impact of RHS in cardiac surgery. Secondly, WHO (2013) provided the background knowledge for cardiac diseases all over the world. Next, Cleveland Clinic (2013); Medlineplus (2014) described open-heart surgery and Robotic heart surgery, respectively and afterwards, Vitiello et al. (2012)(1.532) pointed out the comparison between MIS
  20. 20. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 20 and RHS. Additionally, (ibid) tabled that RHS is beneficial compared to MIS. Moreover, the three major heart complications have been explained by Mayoclinic (2014), daVincisurgery (2013), Great Ormond Street Hospital (NHS) (2012). Mitral valve regurgitation, atrial septal defect, coronary artery disease have been compared between MIS and open heart surgery in terms of operative and post-operative results by Iribarne et al. (2010)(3,631), Paredes et al (2013)(3.342), Losenno et al. (2013)(3.460), respectively. The comparative results in MVR, ASD repair and CAS indicate that MIS is significantly, slightly and not beneficial, respectively. These academic papers have been chosen regarding to their impact factor and detailed meta-analysis in large sample sizes. Finally, assessments of the efficacy of RHS by comparative analyses were conducted among RHS, MIS and sternotomy. The discussion of the report focuses particularly on a comparison of three complications among RHS, MIS and sternotomy in terms of learning curve, economical background, operative and post-operative period. In the first place, the operative period is divided into two major sections, anaesthesia usage and operative time. Boyd et al. (2002)(3.991) and D’Attellis et al. (2002) (1.482) which were particularly useful by providing meta-analysis about anaesthesia usage and Boyd et al. (2002) (3.991) was also predominantly useful in giving a broad comparative information of anaesthesia usage. The information indicates that the elapsed time while anaesthesia is longer among RHS patients because of learning curve and it may be surmountable by training. The operative time part is divided into three different complications. Morgan et al. (2004) (3.973); Woo and Nacke (2006)(3.545), provided particularly detailed meta-analysis and clear information for ASD repair and MVR, respectively. The authors were mainly useful by indicating broad information about surgery techniques. Additionally, from the data adapted from studies by Paredes et al. (2013)(3.342) and Acharya et al. (2012)(2.106), the CAS has been criticized. The authors were especially helpful in giving a broad understanding of CAS technique and detailed meta-analysis of CAS in large sample sizes. These findings suggest that RHS has longer operative time in each surgery for each complication. Subsequently, the postoperative period is examined as hospitalization &
  21. 21. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 21 intensive care unit stay. Due to similarity of MIS and sternotomy in MVR only RHS and sternotomy have been compared through meta-analysis. Woo and Nacke (2006)(3.545) and Kam et al. (2010)(3.991); Desphande et al. (2013)(2.530) and Stahl et al. (2013)(3,973) were especially helpful by giving a comprehensive meta-analyses for comparative assessment and broad information about MVR and CAS respectively. The results in both surgeries indicate that RHS is considerably beneficial. Losenno et al. (2013)(3.460) supplied inclusive meta-analyses for the comparison of ASD and moreover Morgan et al. (2004)(3.973) strengthened the comparison from another angle by pain distribution table. Overall the overwhelming evidences stated by the authors indicate that RHS is significantly beneficial. Afterward, in learning curve part, Rodrigues et al.(2014)(1.482) and Desphande et al. (2013) which were particularly useful to understand steep learning curve and provided data table as well as comprehensive information, respectively. Lastly, Kaneko and Chitwood Jr (2013)(3,937);Kam et al. (2010) showed the cost data and especially provided extensive cost information in economical background section. The qualities of authorship of the sources above were assessed before sorting them as the references by their impact factors. These results will be discussed comprehensively in part 4.
  22. 22. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 22 4 DISCUSSION 4.1 Introduction As outlined in the Literature review there are three different heart surgery methods that exist where a minimally invasive technique is compared with open- heart surgery. New era in cardiac surgery has begun with robotic heart surgery (RHS). (Haddy and Cunningham, 2006). Judging from an overall perspective the RHS is more beneficial than the conventional heart surgery and MIS. RHS is providing patients with significantly improved recovery without sacrificing the safety or the quality of the surgical result. (Vernick and Atluri, 2013). If specific points were assessed, the use of anaesthesia and the learning curve of the conventional surgery have better results than RHS, because the RHS is a new era for cardiovascular surgeries. Therefore RHS needs more training than conventional heart surgery to implement the surgery accurately and in a short time. This part of the study analyses five criteria to determine whether RHS is more preferable than MIS and Sternotomy. The criteria are anaesthesia usage, learning curve, the operative and postoperative term and the economical efficiency of RHS, respectively. The first controversial issue among RHS, MIS and open-heart surgery is operative period, which includes anaesthesia usage and operative time. RHS is a new application for the cardiac surgeries; therefore, surgery lasts longer than open-heart surgery, so the anaesthetists need to be trained to decide on the amount of anaesthetic medicines.
  23. 23. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 23 4.2 Operative Period 4.2.1 Anaesthesia Table 4 the anaesthesia learning curve decrease by training (Rodrigues et al., 2014) With both the conventional and robotic heart surgery the anaesthesia has a primary importance. Anaesthesia renders the patient both unconscious and unable to feel pain while surgery is taking place (Mayoclinic; 2013) due to RHS being a new procedure for heart surgeries. The RHS procedure is new for anaesthetist; therefore, there is a lack of anaesthesia pathway and the length of surgery unpredictable. According to Boyd et al.(2002) and D’Attellis et al.(2002) the operating time and the duration of anaesthesia of RHS is longer than the open-heart surgery. The study of Boyd et al.(2002) which was consist of 84 patients claims that, anaesthesia time and the operation time of RHS was longer than sternotomy by 28.5 ± 28.2 minutes, 368 ± 129 minutes, respectively (Boyd et al.., 2002). According to D’Attellis et al. (2002) the coronary artery surgery and the mitral Quartile 1 (n, 50) Quartile 2 (n, 50) Quartile 3 (n, 50) Quartile 4 (n, 50) Age (yr) 54 ± 10 34/16 56 ± 11 39/11 56 ± 11 34/16 57 ± 10 44/6Gender(n) (male/female) Weight (kg) 81.4 ± 15.4 1314 ± 499.5 85.3 ± 15.7 826.2 ± 495.4 81.5 ± 15.2 398.8 ± 267.4 87.8 ± 14.0 426.3 ± 253.8 Intraoperative fentanyl (µg) Intraoperative Midazolam (mg) 9.5 ± 3.6 5.4 ± 2.7 4.2 ± 1.8 4.2 ± 1.6
  24. 24. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 24 valve repair underwent among 20 patients (13 men and 7 women) and the anaesthetic times for conventional surgery were 4 hours and 6.5 hours respectively and for RHS 11 hours 30 minutes and 12 hours respectively. Fentanyl and midazolam are the two types of anaesthetic medicine and Table 4 indicates that, in first 50 patients the given fentanyl and midazolam were the most and it decreased in third 50 patients. The amount of fentanyl decreased slightly in last 50 patients whereas the amount of midazolam did not change. It shows the anaesthesia issue for RHS needs a steep learning curve and it decreases due to training and experience. These papers also suggest that, in the near future the robotic approaches may become widespread, therefore the required time for anaesthetic procedures in RHS maybe comparable with sternotomy. 4.2.2 Operative Time The operative time consists of elapsed time during cross-clamp, bypass and ventilation. Each surgery has a different operative time due to complexity of the surgery.
  25. 25. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 25 Valve Repair (MVR) Table 5 Operative results while Mitral Valve Repair (Woo and Nacke, 2006) As can be seen in Table 5 above Woo and Nacke (2006) compared the operative results between the sternotomy group and the RHS group among 64 patients in terms of elapsed time while cross-clamp and bypass, which were 162 min against 239 min and 110 min against 151 min. Another paper published by Chitwood Jr. (1999), which also supports that, the operative time of RHS, is longer than sternotomy by the data; the bypass time of RHS was 167 ± 4.6 minutes longer than sternotomy and the cross-clamp period of RHS was 120 ± 4.0 minutes longer than sternotomy (Chitwood Jr., 1999). Finally Kam et al.(2010) corroborates this previous research showing that in a study among 40 sternotomy patients the averaged operative time was 202 minutes. Among 107 RHS patients the elapsed time while operating was 239 minutes. Therefore operating time was 18% longer with RHS patients. Eventually all surveys claims that, the operative time during RHS is longer than Sternotomy operative time. Furthermore all papers supports the idea that the longer operative time results may be overcome by training of surgeons and anaesthesiologist.
  26. 26. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 26 Atrial Septal Defect (ASD) Bypass Times Minutes Cross-clamp Times Minutes References Sternotomy 53.2 ± 31.2 min 32 min 16.5 ± 5.0 min 14 min Morgan et al (2004) Ramsankar et al (2005) MINI 66.7 ± 38.2 min 56.2 ± 21.1 min 46 min 22.5 ± 14.9 min 38.3 ± 8.6 min 22 min Morgan et al (2004) Ma et al (2011) Ramsankar et al (2005) RHS 155.0 ± 61.5 minutes 108.6 ± 12.5 min 38.4 ± 11.2 min 45 ± 11.5 min Morgan et al (2004) Gao et al (2011) Table 6: The comparative analysis of ASD among sternotomy, MINI (preferred minimally invasive surgery technique for ASD) and RHS There were no mortalities in any of surgeries. In a study by Morgan et al. (2004) of 14 ASD patients, the times required for bypass were 53.2 ± 31.2 minutes, 66.7 ± 38.2 minutes and 155.0 ± 61.5 minutes and the average time needed for cross-clamp 16.5 ± 5.0 minutes, 22.5 ± 14.9, and 38.4 ± 11.2 minutes for Sternotomy, MINI and RHS respectively. Another study among 94 patients suggests that bypass time was 32 minutes (37 to 90) and cross-clamp time was 14 minutes in sternotomy whereas in MINI 46 minutes (28 to 45) and 22 min (8 to 36) respectively (Ramsankar et al., 2005). Additionally, Ma et al.(2011) claim, that, the bypass and aortic cross clamp times were 56.2 ± 21.1 and 38.3 ± 8.6 minutes, respectively. The survey of Gao et al. (2008) among 55 patients reinforces the longer operative time issue of RHS by the data, which
  27. 27. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 27 indicates that, the elapsed time during the bypass was 108.6 ± 12.5 min and during the cross clamp 45 ± 11.5 min. Consequently the data clearly shows that RHS has longer operative time compared to MINI and sternotomy. Coronary Artery Surgery (CAS) Bypass Times Minutes Cross-clamp Times Minutes Operative Time References Sternotomy 81.37 ± 25.41 min 63.45 ± 17.71 min 170 min Paredes et al (2013) MIS 102,90 ± 41,68 min 77.31 ± 29.20 min 220 min Paredes et al (2013) RHS 151.7 ± 99.97 min 154,5min 109.94 ± 81.34 min 125,15 min 305 min 342 min Poffo et al (2013) Bonaros et al (2013) Acharya et al (2012) Table 7 The comparative analysis of CAS among Sternotomy, MIS and RHS All surgeries were carried out without any causality. As shown in the study of Paredes et al. (2013) mean bypass surgery time was 102.90 ± 41.68 minutes for the minimally invasive patients against 81.37 ± 25.41 minutes for the sternotomy patients. Average of the cross-clamp time was 77.31 ± 29.20 minutes versus 63.45 ± 17.71 minutes between MIS and Sternotomy. The elapsed time while bypass and cross-clamp increased in the minimally invasive method (Brinkman et al., 2010).Poffo et al. (2013) corroborates this research by the data set which includes that the mean bypass duration was 151.7 ± 99.97
  28. 28. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 28 minutes and the mean aortic cross-clamp duration was 109.94 ± 81.34 minutes for RHS. Acharya et al (2012) also supports, that the RHS has longer operative time also in coronary artery surgery due to mean cross-clamp time and bypass time, 125,15 minutes (30-223) and 154,5 minutes (41-268 min) respectively. Furthermore, according to Acharya et al (2012); Bonaros et al (2013) due to longer bypass times and longer cross-clamp times the operative times were longer in RHS than Sternotomy with 342 minutes against 305 minutes, Overall, these results indicate that in each surgery RHS has a longer operative time. However, this issue can be overcome by training of surgeons and anaesthesiologists. 4.3 Postoperative Period The postoperative period includes the length of stay in hospital and in intensive care unit. These two major proprieties show that the quality and the efficacy of surgery after the surgical procedure. 4.3.1 Hospitalization & Intensive care unit stay Mitral valve repair Table 8 Postoperative Results after Mitral Valve Repair (Woo and Nacke, 2006)
  29. 29. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 29 Intensive care unit stay (Hours) Hospital Stay (Recovery Time) (Days) Sample Size (Patients) Sternotomy N/A 94 h 45h 10.6 days 8,76 days 384 patients 39 patients 40 patients Mihaljevic et al (2011) Woo and Nacke (2006) Kam et al (2010) RHS N/A 52h 37h Decreased by 30% 7.1 days 6,47 days 261 patients 25 patients 107 patients Mihaljevic et al (2011) Woo and Nacke (2006) Kam et al (2010) Table 9 the comparison of the post-operative results between Sternotomy and RHS Mihaljevic et al.(2011) hold the view that the postoperative complications of robotic mitral valve surgery are significantly lesser than conventional sternotomy. Therefore, the hospital stay of patients decreased by 30% .The research has been conducted among 384 sternotomy patients and 261 robotic heart surgery patients. Woo and Nacke (2006) reinforce Mihaljevic’s meta- analysis in Table 9. The study was among 39 sternotomy patients and 25 robotic surgery patients and it supports that the patients who underwent RHS, have better postoperative results, than the open-heart surgery by the hospitalization data 7.1 days against 10.6 days. The results according to Kam et al. (2010) agree with the findings of other studies, in which 147 patients underwent heart surgery. The study indicates that after robotic procedure the duration in intensive care unit decreased by 19%(37 h against 45 h), and the length of hospital stay reduced by 26% (6.47 days versus 8.76 days) compared to sternotomy.
  30. 30. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 30 The findings according to Santana et al. (2011) further support the idea RHS is the preferable technique in MVR. The surgeries conducted among 64 RHS patients and 96 sternotomy patients and the findings show that, postoperative complications appeared among 15 RHS patients whereas 49 patients in open heart surgery patients and there were no causalities in RHS patients whereas 8 patients died in sternotomy. The robotic heart surgery patients had major decrease in loss of blood and the patients had also lesser complications after the surgery. Therefore, extent of hospital and intensive care unit stay decreased significantly. In general, it seems that robotic mitral valve surgery is more preferable when compare with the open-heart in mitral valve surgery (sternotomy) in terms of post-operative period, recovery time and also death rate and moreover RHS patients return their daily life at least 3 days earlier. Atrial Septal Defect Table 10 the comparison of postoperative results in ASD among Sternotomy, MINI and RHS Intensive care stay (days) Hospital stay (Recovery Time) days Back to their Jobs (days) Sternotomy 1.4 ± 0.6 days 2 days 5.9 ± 2.4 days 6.3 ± 3.6 days 8,76 days 51.7 ± 40.2 days Morgan et al (2004) Losenno et al (2013) Kam et al (2010) MINI 1.9 ± 1.5 days 0.95 ± 0.17 days 6.6 ± 3.7 days 5.1 ± 2.2 days 45.6 ± 27.9 days Morgan et al (2004) Ma et al (2011) RHS 1.2 ± 0.4 days 5.6 ± 2.6 days 4.2 ± 2.1 days 6.47 days 40.2 ± 30.2 days Morgan et al (2004) Losenno et al (2013) Kam et al (2010)
  31. 31. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 31 According to Morgan(et al., 2004) the elapsed time while intensive care unit among three surgery groups are 1.2 ± 0.4 days, 1.9 ± 1.5 days for and 1.4 ± 0.6 days RHS, MINI, and Sternotomy, respectively. Overall hospital stays among three types of surgeries are 5.9 ± 2.4 days, 6.6 ± 3.7 days and 5.6 ± 2.6 days for Sternotomy, MINI and RHS respectively (Morgan et al., 2004). According to Morgan et al. (2004), Robotic patients return to their daily life 40.2 ± 30.2 days, MINI patients 45.6 ± 27.9 days, and open-heart surgery patients 51.7 ± 40.2 days as shown on the postoperative results in Table 10. Patients who had robotic procedure have considerably improved results when compared with mini-thoracotomy and sternotomy patients. Ma et al. (2011) have challenged some of Morgan’s conclusions, arguing that post-operative results of RHS are not better than sternotomy. The survey of (ibid) shows the duration in the intensive care unit was 23.0 ± 4.1 hours in minimally invasive technique. Nevertheless, small sample size has been a serious limitation for the study of Ma et al., which were 40 patients and it was not possible to make a clear statement that ASD is accomplishable without RHS and has the same postoperative results. However, the study of Losenno et al. (2013) support the RHS has better postoperative results by the data set among 73 patients; length of hospital stay among MINI, Sternotomy and RHS groups were, 5.1 ± 2.2 days, 6.3 ± 3.6 days and 4.2 ± 2.1 days, respectively. Kam et al. (2010) also reinforce the idea of reduced intensive care unit stay and reduced hospital stay between RHS and Sternotomy. The study of (ibid) indicates that, the elapsed time in intensive care unit and in hospital between RHS and Sternotomy were 37 h against 45 h (19% reduced) and by 6.47 days against 8.76 days (26% reduced) respectively. Morgan et al. (2004) promote the idea from another angle. Table 11 indicates that when RHS is compared with MINI and Sternotomy it is significantly beneficial in postoperative results. The results are in terms of bodily pain, general health, mental health, physical function, role emotional, role physical, social function and vitality. This table is an Analysis of variance ANOVA table. The percentages confirm that the physical condition and also
  32. 32. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 32 mental condition of the patients are significantly better after the RHS. Alternatively, table 12 shows the same results by a histogram. Table 11 the data set shows, that the pain distribution among Sternotomy, MINI and RHS (Morgan et al.., 2004) Table 12 the comparison of the pain distribution among Sternotomy, MINI and RHS by a histogram (Morgan et al.., 2004) BP = bodily painrecovery GH = general health MH = mental health PF = physical function RE = role emotional RP = role physical SF = social function; VT = vitality. Percentage
  33. 33. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 33 Table 13 Pain distributions in three types of surgeries after the hospital stay (Morgan et al., 2004) Table 13 strengthen the RHS more appropriate method in ASD. The pain distribution table also shows that the RHS patients can return to daily life activities earlier than the other surgery patients due to no mild pain among RHS patients. Consequently Losenno et al (2013) and Morgan et al (2004) claim that MINI and Sternotomy have almost similar results. However when RHS is compared to Sternotomy and MINI it has longer operative time results. RHS has significantly improved postoperative results. The elapsed time in intensive care unit and in hospital indicates that RHS patients stayed hospital less than overall 7 days and returned their daily life less than 41 days (Table 11). (Morgan et al., 2004); (Losenno et al., 2013);(Kam et al., 2010).
  34. 34. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 34 Coronary Artery Surgery Intensive care unit stay (Days) Hospital stay (Recovery Time) (Days) Sternotomy 4.17 ± 5.23 days N/A 9.58 ± 7.66 days 8.5 days Paredes et al (2013) Brinkman et al (2010) MIS 3.22 ± 2.01 days N/A 7.27 ± 3.83 days 7.2 days Paredes et al (2013) Brinkman et al (2010) Robotic Heart Surgery 1.01 days 0.6 ± 0.133 days N/A 3.45 days 5.54 ± 1.71 5.1 ± 3.4 days Stahl et al (2013) Ezelsoy et al (2013) Deshpande et al (2013) Table 14 the comparison of the postoperative results among Sternotomy, MIS and RHS This surgery is the most complex surgery among the three surgeries. According to Paredes et al. (2013) the sternotomy patients were exposed with prolonged intensive care unit and hospitalisation rather than MIS group: 4.17 ± 5.23 days against 3.22 ± 2.01 days and 9.58 ± 7.66 days against 7.27 ± 3.83 days, respectively. The sternotomy group patients had more problems in postoperative term, such as breathing problems (42 [8%] against 1). The findings according to Brinkman et al. (2010) is in agreement with Paredes’s (2013) findings which show the mean hospital duration was shorter for minimally invasive artery surgery patients stay of 7.2 days, whereas sternotomy patients
  35. 35. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 35 stayed 8.5 days. As stated by Paredes et al (2013) minimally invasive patients stayed shorter in intensive healthcare units, and spent less time on ventilator. The number of patients, who needs ventilator support in postoperative term, was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group. The two papers claim that postoperative complications and the elapsed time in the intensive care unit in minimally invasive group decreased significantly in comparison with sternotomy. Minimally invasive surgery without robotics has longer operative times because of lack and deficiencies of visualisation as mentioned before. These deficiencies can be overcome by robotic 3-D visualisation and flexibility. Therefore the operative time may decrease. On the other hand, Raiten (2013) is critical of the conclusions that Brinkman and Paredes draw from their findings. Raiten claims that Sternotomy technique is preferable in CAS. If the conversion rate of a larger incision were compared between open-heart surgery and RHS, the conversion rates would be 9% and 20%, respectively. Conversion to a full sternotomy may take several minutes to perform due to the need to remove the multiple robotic ports from the patient and physically relocate the robotic arms. In the event that the chest needs to be opened emergently, this time delay may be catastrophic for the patient. Therefore, Raiten claims that, the operative time has been increased in RHS and also in terms of the postoperative results the open-heart surgery is preferable rather than RHS due to longer operative time. However, according to Stahl et al. (2002) and Ezelsoy et al.(2013) the postoperative results of RHS are considerably better in spite of the long operative time. The research published by Stahl et al. (2013) shows, that mean elapsed time in intensive care unit was 24.4 hours and mean duration in hospital was 3.45 days. Furthermore, the paper published by Ezelsoy et al.(2013) emphasises that duration at the intensive care unit was 14,4±2,61 hours and length of hospital stay was 5,54 ± 1,71 days. Moreover, Deshpande et al. (2013) supports the data of Ezelsoy about length of hospitalizations with 5.1 ± 3.4 days. In contrast to Raiten, when the results of Ezelsoy and Stahl compared with the results of Parades and Brinkman, it is clearly seen that RHS has significantly better postoperative results than open CAS and also MIS. The time
  36. 36. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 36 elapsed in hospital is at least 3 days lesser compared to MIS and Sternotomy (Table 14). Hence, it could conceivably be hypothesised that RHS is more preferable in CAS 4.4 Learning Curve 3 Table 15 Decrease of the operative time of same operation (at same complexity level) by training (Rodrigues et al., 2014) The RHS is an application, which has more advanced and more complex technical demands. Therefore it needs an acquisition of the different skills of surgeons and anaesthesiologists when it is compared to sternotomy The surgeons needs to learn how to use a telemanipulation unit (robotic instruments controlled by computer) and for anaesthesiologist the RHS is new type of heart surgery, therefore there is no established path-way for anaesthesia. Hence, the RHS has a major surgical learning curve. Deshpande et al. (2013) claims that the operative time decreases due to experience, thus more experience should be gained by training. Furthermore Novick et al.(2003) stated that, after statistical analyses it is seen that a significant decrease in operating room time occurs after further training and experience. The finding published by Bonatti et al. (2008) is in agreement with Deshpande et al. (2013) findings, which shows that training reduces the operative time significantly. In the first 25 surgeries the average total operative time was 6 hours, while the last 10 surgeries the operative time decreased between 4 and 5 hours. Table 15 also reinforces the idea that the learning curve can be overcome by training. It shows that the operative time significantly decreases due to repeating the surgery. In the first 50 patients the operative time was 461 ± 110.1 minutes and in last 50 patients it was 354.8 ± 49.5
  37. 37. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 37 minutes. After the surgery of 150 patients the operative time improved by 106,2 minutes. Finally, the main problem in RHS occurs due to longer operative time, which also affects also the cost and it will be discussed in section 4.5. The longer operative time may be surmountable with training. RHS has a steep learning curve because it is a new era for cardiac surgeons and when the technology becomes widespread the steep learning curve may be overcome. 4.5 Economical Background Table 16: the cost comparison between RHS and Open-heart surgery while postoperative period (Kam et al., 2010) Another controversial issue is economical background. If the initial capital investment of RHS is included, the cost of RHS significantly increases. However, according to Morgan et al. (2005) when RHS is compared with open- heart surgery into operative and postoperative costs, RHS redeems the initial capital investment. The hospital cost of robotic atrial septal defect repair and robotic mitral valve repair as compared with open-heart surgery increased by $3,773 and $3,444 respectively. However, the postoperative expenditure is included into the hospital cost, the increase would be in robotic ASD $438,73
  38. 38. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 38 and in robotic MVR $411,32 .The main increase of cost occurs due to operating time and this may decrease over time as stated in section 4.4. On top of that Morgan et al. (2005) claims that RHS may not substantially increase the cost of heart surgery. In contrast, Raiten (2013) has challenged some of Morgan’s conclusions, arguing that the robotic surgeries raises the cost of the surgeries by $1600, which is 6% of the cost of surgery. The cost may be increased by more than $1 million because of the longer operating time, the capital cost for telemanipulation unit and the learning curve for anaesthesiologists and surgeons. The learning curve of surgeons and anaesthesiologists may be overcome by training and the training also has a cost. As estimated training cost by Lee et al. (2011) was at least $3,800. A broader perspective has been adopted by Pates et al. (2009), who claims that the cost of education for robotic is $5500 for two surgeons. However, these ideas have refuted by Kam et al. (2010) in terms of cost- effectiveness of robotic surgery. (Ibid) suggest that, the operative cost of RHS is higher than sternotomy by $12,329 against $9755,but the postoperative cost of RHS is lower than sternotomy with $6174, $8124 respectively. Therefore, the total hospital cost of RHS is comparable with open-heart surgery by $18,503 against $17,880 (Table 16). The paper also suggests that the operating times decrease by training and accordingly, in 5 years the cost of RHS may be lower than open-heart surgery. Kaneko and Chitwood Jr. (2013) corroborate the idea that the capital investment cost may be redeemed in RHS. The authors support that new era of the cardiac surgery has begun by RHS and to improve the cost- effectiveness of this procedure, it requires only training. The training and proliferation of this technology may reduce the time of operation. Therefore the cost of surgery may be less than sternotomy. These results provide further support for the hypothesis that RHS may redeem its capital investment 4.7 Conclusion In conclusion, meta-analysis suggests that RHS is more preferable for three major heart surgeries in terms of post-operative results. On the contrary there are few limitations affect efficacy of RHS, which can be overcome by the proliferation of the technique and by the training of surgeons and
  39. 39. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 39 anaesthesiologists. The predictions show that in 5 years the operative time of RHS may be comparable with open-heart surgery and moreover as the case with the cost of RHS may likely fall, as it becomes more prevalent.
  40. 40. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 40 5.0 CONCLUSION This paper has provided a comparative study among Open-heart surgery, minimally invasive surgery and robotic heart surgery for three different major heart complications, which are Mitral Valve Regurgitation, Atrial Septal Defect and Coronary Artery Diseases. The study has been carried out by dividing the comparison analysis in four main area; learning curve, economical background, operative and postoperative period. These areas deal with respectively, wide spreading of technology and training issue, the cost of the telemanupilation unit, anaesthesia usage and the elapsed time while ın surgery, hospitalization and recovery time after surgery. The areas have been examined and criticized by the meta-analysis as well as by the information provided from journals, which have high impact factor. Due to the lack of pain distribution data in the other two complications, exclusively in atrial septal defect repair part, the pain distribution meta-analysis provided by Morgan et al. (2004) has been used. One of the more significant findings to emerge from this secondary research is that RHS is considerably beneficial in each type of surgery rather than sternotomy and MIS in terms of hospitalization and recovery time. These findings suggest that RHS patients who have conducted MVR and CAS return their daily life at least 3 days earlier. Exceptionally, in ASD repair the overwhelming evidences claim that RHS patients return their work at least 7 days earlier. Based on this, the decreased hospitalization period demonstrates that the patients recovered faster after RHS surgery and moreover, it lead to significant reduction in the hospital charge because hospital bed cost is always the most expensive part of the procedure. Furthermore, due to decrease of duration in hospital less medicine will be used for each patient and other patients in need may be benefit from the healthcare. The healthcare consists of every type of services offered in a hospital. Therefore, since a patient can be discharged from hospital earlier, another can use this offered service. However, the secondary research has attempted to show RHS is more beneficial compared to MIS and Sternotomy. The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, there is a steep learning curve issue. Second, the operative time of RHS is significantly longer than MIS and Open- heart surgery because robotic technique is a new era for cardiac surgery. Third,
  41. 41. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 41 the RHS has overpriced the telemanupilation system to conduct the surgery. For each of them, by further training of anaesthetist’s and surgeons these limitations may be surmounted and by through wide spread use of the robotic technology in future these drawbacks may be overcome. Moreover, for the third limitation operative time of RHS could be compared with open-heart surgery because predictions show that RHS may redeem its initial cost. A further study with more focus on training and widespread of the technology is therefore suggested Consequently, the predictions of surveys indicate that, the drawbacks can be overcome in next decade and humanity may be able to take advantage of the benefits of RHS. Furthermore, due to only one incision during a cardiac surgery, Cardioarm may be the future of the RHS. The Cardioarm robotic technology, which was highlighted in Literature review, is almost ready to be utilized in medical area. The Cardioarm has no developed technique and features for CAS and ASD yet. However, the Cardioarm for mitral valve repair or replace still being developed. The concept studies in porcine heart, which has solved the ablations problem in the study, hope promises. (Choset et al., 2011). Moreover, Neuzil et al. (2013) suggest that this technology has been using for 3-D mapping for heart and it has treated successfully ventricular tachycardia in porcine heart in clinical trials.
  42. 42. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 42 6.0 REFERENCES  Acharya, M.N., Ashrafian, H., Athanasiou, T., Casula, R., (2012). Is totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass safe, feasible and effective? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surgery, 15, 1040–1046  Bonaros, N., Schachner, T., Lehr, E., Kofler, M., Wiedemann, D., Hong, P., Wehman, B., Zimrin, D., Vesely, M.K., Friedrich, G., Bonatti, J., (2013). Five Hundred Cases of Robotic Totally Endoscopic Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Predictors of Success and Safety. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 95, 803–812.  Bonatti, J., Schachner, T., Bonaros, N., Oehlinger, A., Ruetzler, E., Friedrich, G., Feuchtner, G., Laufer, G., (2008). How to improve performance of robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. The American Journal of Surgery, Papers from the North Pacific Surgical Association Papers from the North Pacific Surgical Association, 195, 711–716.  Boyd, W.D., Kodera, K., Stahl, K.D., Rayman, R., (2002). Current status and future directions in computer-enhanced video- and robotic-assisted coronary bypass surgery. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 14, 101–109.  Brinkman, W.T., Hoffman, W., Dewey, T.M., Culica, D., Prince, S.L., Herbert, M.A., Mack, M.J., Ryan, W.H., (2010). Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery: Comparison of Outcomes in Matched Sternotomy and PORT ACCESS Groups. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 90, 131–135.  Chan, L., (2012). Plavix® Associated with More Deaths in Study Analyzing Patients with Coronary Artery Disease. Public Health Watchdog. Retrieved 15th November 2014 from:
  43. 43. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 43 deaths-in-study-analyzing-patients-with-coronary-artery-disease/.  Chitwood Jr, W.R., (1999). Video-Assisted and Robotic Mitral Valve Surgery: Toward an Endoscopic Surgery. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 11, 194–205.  Chitwood, W.R., (2011). Robotic Cardiac Surgery by 2031. Tex Heart Institute Journal, 38, 691–693.  Choices, N.H.S., (2014). Coronary heart disease (ischaemic heart disease) - NHS Choices; Retrieved 8 January 2015 from: spx.  Choset, H., Ota, T., Degani, A., Schwartzman, D., Zubiate, B., McGarvey, J., Zenati, M.A., (2009). A Highly Articulated Robotic Surgical System for Minimally Invasive Surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 87, 1253– 1256.  Cleveland Clinic, Robotically Assisted Heart Surgery, (2013); Retrieved 14th November 2014 from: heart-surgery  Cohn, L.H., (2003). Fifty Years of Open-Heart Surgery. Circulation, 107, 2168–2170.  D’Attellis, N., Loulmet, D., Carpentier, A., Berrebi, A., Cardon, C., Severac-Bastide, R., Fabiani, J.-N., Safran, D., (2002). Robotic-assisted cardiac surgery: Anesthetic and postoperative considerations. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 16, 397–400.
  44. 44. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 44  Davies, M.K. and Hollman, A., (2002). History of cardiac surgery. Heart, 87, 509.  DaVinci Surgery, Coronary Artery Disease Surgery, (2013); Retrieved 14th November 2014 from: cardiac/conditions/coronary-artery-disease/surgery.php  Deshpande, S.P., Fitzpatrick, M., Grigore, A.M., (2013). Pro: Robotic Surgery Is the Preferred Technique for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Surgery. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 27, 802–805.  Dogan, S., Aybek, T., Risteski, P.S., Detho, F., Rapp, A., Wimmer- Greinecker, G., Moritz, A., (2005). Minimally Invasive Port Access Versus Conventional Mitral Valve Surgery: Prospective Randomized Study. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 79, 492–498.  Eugene A. Hessel II, M.D., (2001). Cardiac Anesthesia Timeline. American Society of Anesthesiologists Article, 65, 10-17  Ezelsoy, M., Çaynak, B., Bayramoğlu, Z., Oral, K., Akpınar, B., (2013). Postoperative Clinical and Angiographic Results of Robotic Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Turkish Society of Cardiology Abstracts TSC 29th Turkish Cardiology Congress with International Participation, 62, C62.  Gao Changqing, Ming Yang, Gang Wang, Jiali Wang, (2008). Department of Cardiovascular Surgery PLA General Hospital Beijing, China, Totally robotic resection of myxoma and atrial septal defect repair. Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, 7, 947-950.
  45. 45. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 45  Gomes, P., (2011). Surgical robotics: Reviewing the past, analyzing the present, imagining the future. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Translational Research – Where Engineering Meets Medicine, 27, 261–266.  Great Ormond Street Hospital (NHS), Atrial Septal Defect (ASD) Information, (2012); Retrieved 13th November 2014 from: conditions/atrial-septal-defect/atrial-septal-defect-asd-information/  Haddy, S., Cunningham, M., (2006). Anesthesia for Robotic Heart Surgery. Advances in Anesthesia, 24, 193–206.  Iribarne, A., Russo, M.J., Easterwood, R., Hong, K.N., Yang, J., Cheema, F.H., Smith, C.R., Argenziano, M., (2010). Minimally Invasive Versus Sternotomy Approach for Mitral Valve Surgery: A Propensity Analysis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 90, 1471–1478.  John Hopkins Medicine , Robotic Cardiac Surgery , (2013) ; Retrieved 17thv December 2014 from: ular/robotic_cardiac_surgery_135,11/  Kam, J.K., Cooray, S.D., Kam, J.K., Smith, J.A., Almeida, A.A., (2010). A Cost-analysis Study of Robotic Versus Conventional Mitral Valve Repair. Heart, Lung and Circulation, 19, 413–418.  Kaneko, T., Chitwood Jr, W.R., (2013). Current Readings: Status of Robotic Cardiac Surgery. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 25, 165–170
  46. 46. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 46  Losenno, K.L., Adams, C., Al-Habib, H., Kiaii, B., Guo, R., Menkis, A.H., Chu, M.W., (2013). Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Endoscopic and Conventional Sternotomy Approaches for Atrial Septal Defect Repair. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, Canadian Cardiovascular Congress 2013 66th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Canadian Cardiovascular Congress, 29, 259–260.  Ma, Z. S., Dong, M.-F., Yin, Q.-Y., Feng, Z.-Y., Wang, L.-X., (2011). Totally thoracoscopic repair of atrial septal defect without robotic assistance: A single-center experience. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 141, 1380–1383.  Mächler, H.E., Bergmann, P., Anelli-Monti, M., Dacar, D., Rehak, P., Knez, I., Salaymeh, L., Mahla, E., Rigler, B., (1999). Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 67, 1001–1005.  Mayo Clinic, Mitral valve prolapse and regurgitation, 2014; Retrieved 14th October 2014 from: valveprolapse/multimedia/mitral-valve-prolapse/img-20008259  Medlineplus, Open heart surgery, 2014; Retrieved 2nd February 2015 from:  Michael Raiten, J., (2013). Con: Robotic Surgery Is Not the Preferred Technique for Coronary Revascularization. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 27, 806–808.  Mihaljevic, T., Jarrett, C.M., Gillinov, A.M., Williams, S.J., DeVilliers, P.A., Stewart, W.J., Svensson, L.G., Sabik III, J.F., Blackstone, E.H., (2011). Robotic repair of posterior mitral valve prolapse versus conventional
  47. 47. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 47 approaches: Potential realized. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 141, 72–80.  Mihos, C.G., Santana, O., Lamas, G.A., Lamelas, J., (2013). Incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing minimally invasive versus median sternotomy valve surgery. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 146, 1436–1441.  Morgan, J.A., Peacock, J.C., Kohmoto, T., Garrido, M.J., Schanzer, B.M., Kherani, A.R., Vigilance, D.W., Cheema, F.H., Kaplan, S., Smith, C.R., Oz, M.C., Argenziano, M., (2004). Robotic techniques improve quality of life in patients undergoing atrial septal defect repair. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 77, 1328–1333.  Morgan, J.A., Thornton, B.A., Peacock, J.C., Hollingsworth, K.W., Smith, C.R., Oz, M.C., Argenziano, M., (2005). Does Robotic Technology Make Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Too Expensive? A Hospital Cost Analysis of Robotic and Conventional Techniques. Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 20, 246–251.  MyHealth.Alberta, Angioplasty for Heart Attack and Unstable Angina , 2014; Retrieved 6th December 2014 from:  Neuzil, P., Cerny, S., Kralovec, S., Svanidze, O., Bohuslavek, J., Plasil, P., Jehlicka, P., Holy, F., Petru, J., Kuenzler, R., Sediva, L., (2013). Single-site access robot-assisted epicardial mapping with a snake robot: preparation and first clinical experience. J Robotic Surgery 7, 103–111.  Novick, R.J., Fox, S.A., Kiaii, B.B., Stitt, L.W., Rayman, R., Kodera, K., Menkis, A.H., Boyd, W.D., 2003. Analysis of the learning curve in
  48. 48. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 48 telerobotic, beating heart coronary artery bypass grafting: a 90 patient experience. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 76, 749–753.  Paredes, F.A., Cánovas, S.J., Gil, O., García-Fuster, R., Hornero, F., Vázquez, A., Martín, E., Mena, A., Martínez-León, J., (2013). Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery. A Safe and Useful Technique Beyond the Cosmetic Benefits. Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 66, 695–699.  Poffo, R., Toschi, A.P., Pope, R.B., Celullare, A.L., Benício, A., Fischer, C.H., Vieira, M.L.C., Teruya, A., Hatanaka, D.M., Rusca, G.F., Makdisse, M., (2013). Robotic surgery in Cardiology: a safe and effective procedure. Einstein (São Paulo), 11, 296–302.  Ponnusamy, K., Mohr, C., Curet, M.J., (2011). Clinical Outcomes With Robotic Surgery. Current Problems in Surgery, 48, 577–656  Raanani, E., Spiegelstein, D., Sternik, L., Preisman, S., Moshkovitz, Y., Smolinsky, A.K., Shinfeld, A., (2010). Quality of mitral valve repair: Median sternotomy versus port-access approach. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 140, 86–90.  Ramsankar Padmanabhan M.Ch., Rajesh Sadanandan M.Ch., Mohammad Haneefa Abdul Rasheed M.Ch., Mankunnatthumadam Narayanannampoothiri Yoganathan Nampoothiri M.Ch., Karthikizhiyzm Gopinathan Dinakaran M.Ch., Dr. Padmanabhan Balachandran Nair M.Ch., (2005). Right postero-lateral thoracotomy for atrial septal defect closure; a comparative analysis with median sternotomy, Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 21, 1, 24-28.  Reger, T.B., Janhke, M.E., (2003). Robotic Cardiac Surgery. AORN Journal, 77, 182–186.
  49. 49. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 49  Rodrigues, E.S., Lynch, J.J., Suri, R.M., Burkhart, H.M., Li, Z., Mauermann, W.J., Rehfeldt, K.H., Nuttall, G.A., 2014. Robotic Mitral Valve Repair: A Review of Anesthetic Management of the First 200 Patients. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 28, 64–68.  S.H. Sündermann, J. Sromicki, H. Rodriguez Cetina Biefer, B. Seifert, T. Holubec, V. Falk, et al. (2014). Mitral valve surgery: Right lateral minithoracotomy or sternotomy, A systematic review and meta-analysis. Thoracic Cardiovascular Surgery, 87, 192-197  Seeburger, J., Borger, M.A., Falk, V., Passage, J., Walther, T., Doll, N., Mohr, F.W., (2009). Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery After PreviousSternotomy: Experience in 181 Patients. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 87, 709–714  Stahl, K.D., Boyd, W.D., Vassiliades, T.A., Karamanoukian, H.L., (2002). Hybrid robotic coronary artery surgery and angioplasty in multivessel coronary artery disease. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 74, 1358–1362.  UC Davis Health System , The Condition : Coronary Heart Disease , n.d.; Retrieved 15 December 2014 from: s.html  University of Minnesota , Atrial Septal Defects (ASDs) , n.d. ; Retrieved 15 December 2014 from: defects-tutorial/septal-defects/atrial-septal-defects.shtml  Vernick, W., Atluri, P., (2013). Robotic and Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery. Anesthesiology Clinics, Cardiac Anesthesia, 31, 299–320.
  50. 50. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 50  Vitiello, V., Kwok, K. W., Yang, G.-Z., (2012). 1 - Introduction to robot- assisted minimally invasive surgery (MIS), in: Gomes, P. (Ed.), Medical Robotics, Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing, 1–P1.  WHO | Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), (2013); Retrieved 4th December 2014 from:  WHO | The top 10 causes of death, (2014); Retrieved 2nd February 2015 from:  Woo, Y.J., Nacke, E.A., (2006). Robotic minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction yields less blood product transfusion and shorter length of stay. Surgery, 140, 263–267.  Woo, Y.J., Seeburger, J., Mohr, F.W., (2007). Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Minimal- Incision Cardiac Surgery Edited by Y. Joseph Woo, MD; Management of Complications of Lung Resection Edited by Richard J. Battafarano, MD, PhD 19, 289–298  Zenati, M.A., (2001). Robotic Heart Surgery : Cardiology in Review; Retrieved 19 December 2014 from: Heart_Surgery.9.aspx.  Zenati, M.A., Mahvash, M., (2012). 4 - Robotic systems for cardiovascular interventions, in: Gomes, P. (Ed.), Medical Robotics, Woodhead Publishing Series in Biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing, 78– 89.  Lee, J.Y., Mucksavage, P., Sundaram, C.P., McDougall, E.M., (2011). Best Practices for Robotic Surgery Training and Credentialing. The Journal of Urology, 185, 1191–1197.
  51. 51. 2172388 PM505 Irene Hargan 51  Patel, H.R.H., Linares, A., Joseph, J.V., (2009). Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: Cost and training. Surgical Oncology, Prostate Cancer: Clinical Outcomes in Clinical Practice, 18, 242–246.


Total views


On Slideshare


From embeds


Number of embeds