Propensity-matched analysis of robotic versus sternotomy approaches for mitral valve replacement

Background To compare early and medium-term outcomes between robotic and sternotomy approaches for mitral valve replacement (MVR). Methods Clinical data of 1393 cases who underwent MVR between January 2014 and January 2023 were collected and stratified into robotic MVR (n = 186) and conventional sternotomy MVR (n = 1207) groups. The baseline data of the two groups of patients were corrected by the propensity score matching (PSM) method. Results After matching, the baseline characteristics were not significant different between the two groups (standardized mean difference < 10%). Moreover, the rates of operative mortality (P = 0.663), permanent stroke (P = 0.914), renal failure (P = 0.758), pneumonia (P = 0.722), and reoperation (P = 0.509) were not significantly different. Operation, CPB and cross-clamp time were shorter in the sternotomy group. On the other hand, ICU stay time, post-operative LOS, intraoperative transfusion, and intraoperative blood loss were shorter or less in the robot group. Operation, CPB, and cross-clamp time in robot group were all remarkably improved with experience. Finally, all-cause mortality (P = 0.633), redo mitral valve surgery (P = 0.739), and valve-related complications (P = 0.866) in 5 years of follow-up were not different between the two groups. Conclusions Robotic MVR is safe, feasible, and reproducible for carefully selected patients with good operative outcomes and medium-term clinical outcomes.