Key result
Minimally invasive and robotic cardiac surgery links to longer operating times and higher costs.
Why the study?
Randomized evidence for minimally invasive cardiac surgery is scarce, adoption is challenged by specialized training, longer operating times, and higher costs, and transcatheter alternatives are rapidly increasing.
This review examines the current status and future perspectives of minimally invasive and robotic cardiac surgery in the context of scarce randomized evidence and increasing transcatheter alternatives.
Minimally invasive techniques in cardiac surgery have found increasing use in recent years. Both patients and physicians often associate smaller incisions with improved outcomes (i.e., less risk, shorter hospital stay, and a faster recovery). Videoscopic and robotic assistance has been introduced, but their routine use requires specialized training and is associated with potentially longer operating times and higher costs. Randomized evidence is scarce and transcatheter treatment alternatives are increasing rapidly. As a result, the concept of minimally invasive cardiac surgery may be viewed with skepticism. In this review, we examine the current status and potential future perspectives of minimally invasive and robotic cardiac surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Faerber et al. (2023) conducted a review in Cardiac surgery. Minimally invasive and robotic cardiac surgery was evaluated. Minimally invasive and robotic cardiac surgery techniques require specialized training and are associated with potentially longer operating times and higher costs, with scarce randomized evidence.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: