Why the study?
Do robotic and minimally invasive approaches offer similar efficacy and improved patient acceptance compared to standard median sternotomy in patients undergoing mitral valve repair?
Do robotic and minimally invasive approaches offer similar efficacy and improved patient acceptance compared to standard median sternotomy in patients undergoing mitral valve repair?
Robotic and minimally invasive mitral valve repair are effective and well-tolerated alternatives to standard sternotomy, though their complexity necessitates performance in experienced referral centers.
Should be limited to experienced centers; leaves open need for RCTs on long-term outcomes.
Robotic and minimally invasive mitral valve (MV) procedures have been performed with increasing frequency over time. These alternatives offer similar efficacy to that achieved via standard median sternotomy, particularly in large volume centers, along with low perioperative morbidity and mortality rates. Moreover, patient acceptance is oftentimes increased due to less postoperative pain and shorter recovery times, as well as superior cosmetic results. However, these techniques are technically complex and associated with a significant learning curve. The following review offers an overview of the most relevant aspects related to minimally invasive and robotic MV repair. Although these techniques are well established in referral centers, future innovations should concentrate on decreasing complexity and improving reproducibility of these procedures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marín-Cuartas et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: