Key result
Endoscopic and robotic transapical AVI prove feasible in a pig model compared to standard minithoracotomy.
Why the study?
Does an endoscopic or robotic approach to transapical aortic valve implantation improve feasibility, blood loss, or operative time compared to standard minithoracotomy in a pig model?
Does an endoscopic or robotic approach to transapical aortic valve implantation improve feasibility, blood loss, or operative time compared to standard minithoracotomy in a pig model?
Percutaneous endoscopic and robotic transapical aortic valve implantation are feasible in a porcine model, with comparable perioperative blood loss and operative times to standard minithoracotomy.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Preclinical feasibility in pigs encourages less invasive transapical AVI development; leaves open human translation and comparative outcomes.
We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of an endoscopic approach to transapical aortic valve implantation (AVI), avoiding the morbidity of a thoracotomy incision. Using an experimental pig model, we performed three different approaches to transapical AVI, using a standard minithoracotomy (n=4), a robotic approach using the da Vinci telemanipulator (n=4) and an endoscopic approach using a port and camera access (n=4). The feasibility of the different techniques, exposure of the left ventricular apex, postoperative blood loss and total operative time were evaluated. Left ventricular apical exposure, 'purse-string' suture control and 33-F introducer access were successfully performed and confirmed videoscopically, fluoroscopically and at a post mortem in all 12 animals. The haemodynamics were stable in all animals. Mean intraoperative and postoperative (two-hour) blood losses were 88 and 65 ml with minithoracotomy, and 228 and 138 ml with the robotic and 130 and 43 ml with the endoscopic technique (P=0.26, P=0.14, respectively). There was no significant change in perioperative haematocrit (P=0.53). The mean total operative times were 1.4, 3.9 and 1.1 h (P=0.06), respectively. Percutaneous endoscopic and robotic transapical AVI are both feasible and can be performed in a timely manner with reasonable perioperative blood loss. Future research will focus on identifying optimal candidates for surgery based upon preoperative thoracic imaging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chu et al. (2011) studied Transapical aortic valve implantation (n=12). Endoscopic and robotic transapical aortic valve implantation vs. Standard minithoracotomy was evaluated on Mean total operative time (hours) (p=0.06). Percutaneous endoscopic and robotic transapical AVI were feasible in a pig model, with mean operative times of 1.1 h and 3.9 h versus 1.4 h for standard minithoracotomy (P=0.06).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: