Key result
Robotic AVR demonstrates early feasibility and safety with a median ~4-day hospital stay.
Why the study?
Certain patients with aortic valve disease are not good candidates for percutaneous treatment, and robotic surgery may offer a valid alternative for aortic valve procedures.
Observational (n=25)
No
Establishing a robotic aortic valve replacement program is feasible and safe, providing excellent early clinical outcomes with short ICU and hospital stays in selected patients.
Does not support practice change; leaves open RAVR's role pending prospective comparative trials.
Background: The natural history of aortic valve disease commonly eventuates in percutaneous or open surgical treatment. Percutaneous treatment has been expanding its indication from high-risk patients to low- and moderate-risk patients; however, there are certain groups of patients who are not good candidates for percutaneous treatment, such as those with bicuspid valve disease or pure aortic regurgitation patients. Robotic surgery, as an evolution from traditional approaches, has been gradually expanding its indications in cardiac surgery. The use of a lateral approach, common to robotic mitral procedures, may become a valid alternative for several patients undergoing aortic valve procedures. The aim of the present study was to evaluate and discuss the characteristics, challenges and early results of a newly created robotic aortic valve replacement program. Methods: This was a retrospective study analysing prospectively collected data of all patients who have undergone robotic aortic valve replacement (RAVR) in Hospital Clínic Barcelona from December 2021 to October 2024. Results: Since December 2021, 25 consecutive patients have undergone RAVR. Sixty-eight percent of the cohort were males and the median age was 66 years [interquartile range (IQR), 58.5-71.8 years]. Severe aortic stenosis was the predominant lesion in 76% of patients, and degenerative calcification was the aetiology in 52% of patients. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 129 minutes (IQR, 113-145.5 minutes) and median ischemic time was 91 minutes (IQR, 78-105 minutes). Three patients required a re-exploration for bleeding, which was performed through the same approach, and one patient suffered an ischemic cerebro-vascular accident (CVA) with complete recovery. Median intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and hospital length of stay were 1 and 4 days, respectively. Conclusions: Our initial experience shows that expanding a robotic program to include RAVR is feasible, safe, and can provide excellent clinical outcomes in selected patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sandoval et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Aortic valve disease (n=25). Robotic aortic valve replacement (RAVR) was evaluated on Clinical outcomes including operative times, complications, and length of stay. Robotic aortic valve replacement was feasible and safe in 25 patients, with a median hospital stay of 4 days and 3 patients requiring re-exploration for bleeding.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: