Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5193_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
65 Мб
Скачать
31 Robotic Pulmonary Lobectomy
9. Cerfolio RJ, Steenwyk BL, Watson C, etal. Decreasing the preincision time for pulmonary lobectomy: the process of lean and value stream mapping. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:1110–5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.004.
10. Cerfolio RJ, Watson C, Minnich DJ, etal. One hundred planned robotic segmentectomies: early results, technical details, and preferred port placement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:1089–95.; Discussion 1095-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.08.092.
11. Cheng C, Tagkalos E, Ng CB, etal. Subcostal uniportal robotic anatomic lung resection: A pilot trial. JTCVS Tech. 2024;25:160–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjtc.2024.01.024.
12. Coyan GN, Lu M, Ruppert KM, etal. Activity-based cost analysis of robotic anatomic lung resection during program implementation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;113:244–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.01.053.
13. Emmert A, Straube C, Buentzel J, Roever C.Robotic versus thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine. 2017;96:e7633. https://doi.org/10.1097/
MD.0000000000007633.
14. Falcoz P-E, Puyraveau M, Thomas P-A, etal. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open lobectomy for primary non-small-cell lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis of outcome from the European Society of Thoracic Surgeon database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:602–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezv154.
15. Fang L, Wang L, Wang Y, etal. Video assisted thoracic surgery vs. thoracotomy for locally advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;13:128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019- 018- 0813- 7.
16. Fang Z, Li C, Bosinceanu ML, et al. Case report: Uniportal robot-assisted thoracoscopic double- sleeve lobectomy after neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Front Surg. 2024;11:1360125.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1360125.
17. Gonzalez-Rivas D, Bosinceanu M, Motas N, Manolache V.Uniportal robotic-assisted thoracic surgery for lung resections. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022;62 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/
ezac410.
18. Gonzalez-Rivas D, Manolache V, Bosinceanu ML, etal. Uniportal pure robotic-assisted tho­racic surgery-technical aspects, tips and tricks. Ann Transl Med. 2023;11:362. https://doi.
org/10.21037/atm- 22- 1866.
19. Graham EA.The rst total pneumonectomy. Tex Cancer Bull. 1949;2:2–4.
20. Keeney-Bonthrone TP, Frydrych LM, Karmakar M, etal. Robot-assisted vs. video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy: a systematic review of cost effectiveness. Video Assist Thorac Surg. 2020;5(4) https://doi.org/10.21037/vats.2019.12.07.
21. Kent M, Wang T, Whyte R, etal. Open, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and robotic lobectomy: review of a national database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97:236–42; discussion 242–4. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.07.117.
22. Kent MS, Hartwig MG, Vallières E, et al. Pulmonary Open, Robotic, and Thoracoscopic Lobectomy (PORTaL) study: survival analysis of 6646 cases. Ann Surg. 2023;277:1002–9.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000005820.
23. Kneuertz PJ, Abdel-Rasoul M, D’Souza DM, etal. Segmentectomy for clinical stage I non­small cell lung cancer: national benchmarks for nodal staging and outcomes by operative approach. Cancer. 2022;128:1483–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34071.
24. Kneuertz PJ, Singer E, D’Souza DM, etal. Hospital cost and clinical effectiveness of robotic­assisted versus video-assisted thoracoscopic and open lobectomy: a propensity score-weighted comparison. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;157:2018–2026.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jtcvs.2018.12.101.
25. Kosarek L, Busch E, Abbas A, etal. Effective use of bronchial blockers in lung isolation sur­gery: an analysis of 130 cases. Ochsner J. 2013;13:389–93.
26. Kratzer TB, Bandi P, Freedman ND, et al. Lung cancer statistics, 2023. Cancer. 2024;130:1330–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35128.
27. Lee EC, Lazzaro RS, Glassman LR, etal. Switching from thoracoscopic to robotic platform for lobectomy: report of learning curve and outcome. Innovations (Phila). 2020;15:235–42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1556984520911670.
457
458
28. Lee JH, Hong JI, Kim HK.Single-port robotic subcostal major pulmonary resection using the single-port robotic system. World J Surg. 2024;48:713–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12051.
29. Li C, Hu Y, Huang J, et al. Comparison of robotic-assisted lobectomy with video-assisted thoracic surgery for stage IIB-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2019;8:820–8. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2019.10.15.
30. Liang H, Liang W, Zhao L, et al. Robotic versus video-assisted lobectomy/segmentec­tomy for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2018;268:254–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/
SLA.0000000000002346.
31. Louie BE, Farivar AS, Aye RW, Vallières E.Early experience with robotic lung resection results in similar operative outcomes and morbidity when compared with matched video-assisted tho­racoscopic surgery cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1598–604; discussion 1604-5. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.01.067.
32. Ma J, Li X, Zhao S, etal. Robot-assisted thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic sur­gery for lung lobectomy or segmentectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta­analysis. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:498. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885- 021- 08241- 5.
33. Marshall MB, Wee JO. Robotic platform use in general thoracic surgery. JAMA Surg. 2019;154:1066–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.3361.
34. McKenna RJ.Lobectomy by video-assisted thoracic surgery with mediastinal node sampling for lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;107:879–81; discussion 881–2.
35. Mel FMA, Menconi GF, Mariani AM, Angeletti CA.Early experience with robotic tech­nology for thoracoscopic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;21:864–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/s1010- 7940(02)00102- 1.
36. Morgan JA, Ginsburg ME, Sonett JR, etal. Advanced thoracoscopic procedures are facilitated by computer-aided robotic technology. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003;23:883–7; discussion
887. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1010- 7940(03)00160- x.
37. Nelson DB, Mehran RJ, Mitchell KG, etal. Robotic-assisted lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: a comprehensive institutional experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108:370–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.03.051.
38. Ng CSH, MacDonald JK, Gilbert S, etal. Optimal approach to lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: systemic review and meta-analysis. Innovations (Phila). 2019;14:90–116. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1556984519837027.
39. Nguyen DM, Sarkaria IS, Song C, et al. Clinical and economic comparative effective­ness of robotic-assisted, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and open lobectomy. J Thorac Dis. 2020;12:296–306. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2020.01.40.
40. Novellis P, Bottoni E, Voulaz E, et al. Robotic surgery, video-assisted thoracic surgery, and open surgery for early stage lung cancer: comparison of costs and outcomes at a single insti­tute. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10:790–8. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2018.01.123.
41. Oh DS. Innovations in robotic surgery and recent developments in the SP platform. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2023;12:126–7. https://doi.org/10.21037/acs- 2022- urats- 28.
42. Oh DS, Reddy RM, Gorrepati ML, et al. Robotic-assisted, video-assisted thoracoscopic and open lobectomy: propensity-matched analysis of recent premier data. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104:1733–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.06.020.
43. Oh DS, Tisol WB, Cesnik L, etal. Port strategies for robot-assisted lobectomy by high- volume thoracic surgeons: a nationwide survey. Innovations (Phila). 2019;14:545–52. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1556984519883643.
44. Park BJ, Mel F, Mussi A, etal. Robotic lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): long-term oncologic results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:383–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.10.055.
45. Park BJ, Yang H-X, Woo KM, Sima CS.Minimally invasive (robotic assisted thoracic surgery and video-assisted thoracic surgery) lobectomy for the treatment of locally advanced non­small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Dis. 2016;8:S406–13. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2016.04.56.
46. Petrov R, Bakhos C, Abbas A.Robotic portal lung resection. In: robotic surgery: clinical per­ceptions, approaches and challenges; 2019. pp.3–15.
47. Potter AL, Puttaraju T, Sulit JC, etal. Assessing the number of annual lung cancer resections performed in the United States. Shanghai Chest. 2023;7:29. https://doi.org/10.21037/shc- 22- 7.
A. I. Gritsiuta et al.
31 Robotic Pulmonary Lobectomy
48. Reddy RM, Gorrepati ML, Oh DS, etal. Robotic-assisted versus thoracoscopic lobectomy outcomes from high-volume thoracic surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106:902–8. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.048.
49. Sakakura N, Eguchi T.Port placement variations for robotic lung resection: focusing on their history, conventional look-up-view and horizontal open-thoracotomy-view techniques, and more. J Pers Med. 2023;13 https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13020230.
50. Sarkaria IS, Gorrepati ML, Mehendale S, Oh DS.Lobectomy in octogenarians: real world outcomes for robotic-assisted, video-assisted thoracoscopic, and open approaches. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11:2420–30. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.05.52.
51. Sepesi B, Zhou N, William WN, etal. Surgical outcomes after neoadjuvant nivolumab or nivolumab with ipilimumab in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;164:1327–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2022.01.019.
52. Servais EL, Miller DL, Thibault D, etal. Conversion to thoracotomy during thoracoscopic vs robotic lobectomy: predictors and outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;114:409–17. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.10.067.
53. Shen J.Prof. Abbas E.Abbas: a robotic thoracic practice can provide both clinical and nancial benets for an academic institution. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:E573–5. https://doi.org/10.21037/
jtd.2017.04.72.
54. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A.Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:12–49.
https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21820.
55. Subramanian MP, Liu J, Chapman WC, etal. Utilization trends, outcomes, and cost in mini­mally invasive lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;108:1648–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
athoracsur.2019.06.049.
56. Tong BC, Gu L, Wang X, etal. Perioperative outcomes of pulmonary resection after neoad­juvant pembrolizumab in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;163:427–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.02.099.
57. Veluswamy RR, Whittaker Brown S-A, Mhango G, etal. Comparative effectiveness of robotic­assisted surgery for resectable lung cancer in older patients. Chest. 2020;157:1313–21. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.09.017.
58. Worrell SG, Dedhia P, Gilbert C, etal. The cost and quality of life outcomes in develop­ing a robotic lobectomy program. J Robot Surg. 2019;13:239–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11701- 018- 0844- z.
59. Wu CF, Cheng C, Suen KH, et al. A preclinical feasibility study of single-port robotic sub­costal anatomical lung resection and subxiphoid thymectomy using the da Vinci® SP system. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13 https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13030460.
60. Wu H, Jin R, Yang S, etal. Long-term and short-term outcomes of robot- versus video­assisted anatomic lung resection in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;59:732–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaa426.
61. Yang Y, Song L, Huang J, et al. A uniportal right upper lobectomy by three-arm robotic­assisted thoracoscopic surgery using the da Vinci (Xi) Surgical System in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021;10:1571–5. https://doi.org/10.21037/
tlcr- 21- 207.
62. Ye X, Xie L, Chen G, etal. Robotic thoracic surgery versus video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;21:409–14. https://doi.
org/10.1093/icvts/ivv155.
63. Zervos M, Song A, Li Y, etal. Clinical and economic outcomes of using robotic versus hand­held staplers during robotic lobectomy. Innovations (Phila). 2021;16:470–6. https://doi.
org/10.1177/15569845211040814.
64. Zhang J, Feng Q, Huang Y, etal. Updated evaluation of robotic- and video-assisted thoraco­scopic lobectomy or Segmentectomy for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2022;12:853530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.853530.
65. Zhang Y, Chen C, Hu J, etal. Early outcomes of robotic versus thoracoscopic segmentectomy for early-stage lung cancer: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;160:1363–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.12.112.
459

Robotic-Assisted Cardiac Surgery

32
AmaliaA.Jonsson andMichaelE.Halkos

Introduction

Robotic technology has inltrated into nearly every surgical domain over the past two decades, and cardiac surgery is no exception. This growth is driven by patient and referring cardiologist desire for less invasive options with safe and durable results. Despite the documented safety and efcacy of these techniques, adoption has been slow with less than 15% of robotic mitral valve repairs being performed robotically [1] and less than 1% of coronary bypass procedures being performed robotically [2]. This slow adoption is likely due to the high resource commitment required to start a robotics program and the steep learning curve for not only the surgeon but the entire team when learning these procedures.

Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass

Minimally invasive coronary bypass has evolved signicantly over the last decade. A wide variety of techniques from minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) where the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) is harvested under direct vision to totally endoscopic robotic CABG (TECAB) where multivessel bypass is performed entirely endoscopically with the aid of the robot are currently performed. Robotic-assisted coronary bypass, our preferred minimally invasive technique, is an attractive option in the management of patients with isolated LAD disease or multivessel coronary disease providing the benets of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to the left anterior descending (LAD) graft while avoiding
A. A. Jonsson (*) · M. E. Halkos Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA e-mail: Amalia.jonsson@emory.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 S. Samreen et al. (eds.), The SAGES Manual of Robotic Surgery,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86927-3_32
461
462
A. A. Jonsson and M. E. Halkos
the morbidity of a sternotomy. The procedure includes robotic LIMA harvest and a handsewn anastomosis performed through a small non-rib-spreading anterior mini­thoracotomy. For patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, this technique can be combined with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to create a hybrid revascularization strategy.
Indications andPatient Selection
Robotic-assisted CABG can be used to treat patients with isolated LAD disease or can be applied to patients with multivessel coronary disease in conjunction with PCI in a hybrid revascularization (HCR) strategy. Absolute contraindications to this technique include prior cardiac surgery, severe lung disease which would preclude single lung ventilation, hemodynamic instability, or ongoing ischemia. Relative contraindications include truncal obesity and large ventricular size due to low ejec­tion fraction. In terms of coronary anatomy, patients must have a segment of non­intramyocardial, noncalcied LAD.In the case of planned hybrid revascularization, non-LAD target vessels must have reasonable PCI options.
Operative Technique
Our technique requires that single lung ventilation be achieved using a double­lumen endotracheal tube or a bronchial blocker. A gel roll is placed underneath the left chest just inferior to the scapula so that the shoulder will gently fall away. Three 8mm trocars are placed in the left chest, and CO2 insufation (8–12mm Hg) is used. Instead of placing the camera port in a specic interspace, we always aim to put the camera port at the midpoint between the costal margin and the clavicle. Prior to placing the camera port, the chest is entered with a blunt instrument (Kelly clamp) so that there is minimal force needed to insert the camera port. This is almost always the fourth or fth interspace and lies usually at or just posterior to the anterior axil­lary line. The superior port is placed two interspaces superior and slightly medial to the camera port and is placed after localizing with a spinal needle so the surgeon can appreciate the angle and location of entry. Placing this port too posteriorly will lead to conict with the left shoulder. The inferior port is placed two or three interspaces below the camera port and should be slightly inferior to the apex of the heart. Similarly, a spinal needle can be used to identify the best location for port placement (Fig.32.1). The da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California) robot is then used to harvest the LIMA in a semi-skeletonized fashion. We begin by removing the endothoracic fascia and transversus thoracic muscle to aid with exposure of the LIMA. The LIMA is harvested en bloc with the two mammary veins using the robotic clip applier to ligate large branches. A posterior pericardial window is made, and pericardial fat is removed from the anterior pericardium using electrocautery. Heparin is administered to achieve an ACT >300, and the LIMA is divided distally
32 Robotic-Assisted Cardiac Surgery
Fig. 32.1 Port placement for robotic-assisted CABG
463
between clips. The pericardium is opened longitudinally and the distal LAD target is identied. Care is taken to avoid injury to the phrenic nerve superiorly and inferi­orly if the pericardiotomy is extended horizontally. The robot is then undocked and a 3–4cm non-rib-spreading anterolateral thoracotomy is created after localizing the incision using a spinal needle and the endoscope. A spinal needle is inserted into either the fourth or fth interspace and the carbon dioxide insufation is discon­nected to allow the heart to return to its normal position. With the endoscope, the surgeon is watching to see if the LAD at the planned site of anastomosis approaches the tip of the spinal needle. A soft tissue retractor (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) is used to provide gentle soft tissue retraction to expose the mid-distal third of the LAD.The Nuvo off-pump stabilizer (Medtronic Corp, Minneapolis, Minn) is inserted through the inferior robotic port site and used to stabilize the LAD at the planned site of the anastomosis (Fig.32.2). The LIMA is retrieved from the chest and prepared in the usual fashion. A soft silastic vessel loop is placed around the LAD proximal to the planned site of the anastomosis and a period of test occlu­sion is performed for 3min to ensure hemodynamic and electrical stability. After the LAD arteriotomy is completed, an appropriately sized intracoronary shunt is placed and a manual LIMA to LAD anastomosis is then performed off-pump using an 8-0 polypropylene suture. The shunt is removed prior to the nal few sutures, and the vessel is tacked in place using a 6-0 polypropylene suture (Fig.32.3). A 28 French Blake drain is left in the left pleural space via the inferior trocar site. The minithoracotomy incision is closed in multiple layers (Fig.32.4).
Outcomes
This technique has yielded excellent results. In review of our rst 1000 robotic­assisted CABG procedures, we demonstrated a 0.6% 30-day mortality and 0.5% stroke rate. Conversion to sternotomy was low (3.0%), as was repeat
464
Fig. 32.2 Minithoracotomy and setup for anastomosis
A. A. Jonsson and M. E. Halkos
Fig. 32.3 Completed LIMA to LAD anastomosis
revascularization (1.0%), and left internal mammary to left anterior descending artery patency was high at 97% [3]. We recently developed a fast-track protocol where appropriate patients can bypass the ICU, cutting down on hospital length of stay as well as inpatient costs without affecting patient outcomes [4]. In addition to these positive clinical outcomes, patients also benet from faster recovery and faster return to normal activities.
32 Robotic-Assisted Cardiac Surgery
Fig. 32.4 Robotic-assisted CABG incisions (left) vs traditional sternotomy (right)
465
Robotic-Assisted TECAB
While robotic-assisted LIMA harvest is an excellent alternative to traditional CABG, some surgeons have transitioned to robot-assisted totally endoscopic coro­nary artery bypass (TECAB). The benets of TECAB are even less tissue trauma because the need for a minithoracotomy is obviated, and the potential to perform multivessel bypass, including to the circumex and right coronary territories. The rst signicant series, reported by Mohr and colleagues in 2001, described 27 patients who underwent LIMA harvest and endoscopic LIMA to LAD anastomosis using the da Vinci telemanipulation system [5]. In 2006, a multicenter FDA­sanctioned trial demonstrated the safety and efcacy of TECAB using the da Vinci system in 85 patients [6]. Since that time, select centers have begun to routinely perform multivessel TECAB with excellent results [7]. Unfortunately, the complex­ity of the operation and signicant learning curve result in prolonged operative times and possibly increased complication rates early in a surgeon’s experience [8,
9]. Despite overall good short-term results with TECAB, the aforementioned short-
comings have limited its widespread adoption.
Hybrid Coronary Revascularization (HCR)
With good outcomes for minimally invasive CABG surgery established, increasing demand for minimally invasive procedures, mediocre outcomes with saphenous vein grafts, and improved results with PCI using drug-eluting stent (DES), hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) has garnered attention from surgeons, cardiolo­gists, and patients. While many minimally invasive CABG techniques have been
466
A. A. Jonsson and M. E. Halkos
described, we feel that robotic-assisted CABG is ideally suited for this revascular­ization strategy in appropriate coronary anatomy. The robotic-assisted LIMA har­vest is a relatively simple and short procedure and allows for versatility when combining with non-LAD PCI, which can be performed either before, after, or con­comitantly with the surgical procedure. HCR has been repeatedly shown to be safe and effective [1013] for many different patient populations. Although long-term outcomes with HCR are lacking, this strategy is quickly becoming an important option in the revascularization algorithm.

Robotic-Assisted Mitral Valve Surgery

Nonsternotomy approaches to the mitral valve range from a modestly sized right thoracotomy approach to total endoscopic techniques, some of which employ robot­ics. Our technique includes a double-lumen endotracheal tube and transesophageal echocardiography. The patient is positioned supine with a bump under the right side of the chest. Peripheral cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass is utilized, most frequently femoral arterial and venous; however, axillary arterial cannulation can be used if there is a contraindication to femoral perfusion. The camera port is inserted in the fourth or fth interspace and the endoscope is used to assess for any pleural adhesions. Three additional robotic 8mm ports are placed in the right chest as well as a 3cm service port through which the bedside assistant will work. Three angio­catheters are inserted as well which will be used for traction sutures (Figs.32.5 and
32.6). Heparin is administered and the femoral vessels are cannulated using
Seldinger technique and echo guidance. Typically, we place an additional cannula in the right internal jugular vein to achieve bicaval cannulation. The da Vinci Xi robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) is then docked, and CO2 insufation is used for the entirety of the procedure. Cardiopulmonary bypass is initiated. The pericardium is opened using electrocautery and stay sutures are placed in the peri­cardium as well as in the diaphragm to aid with visualization. Aortic occlusion is
Fig. 32.5 Port placement for robotic mitral valve surgery
32 Robotic-Assisted Cardiac Surgery
Fig. 32.6 Setup for robotic mitral valve surgery
467
achieved either with the endoaortic balloon (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) or with a transthoracic clamp. Antegrade cardioplegia is delivered either via the endo­aortic balloon’s internal lumen or via an aortic tac inserted into the ascending aorta. Exposure of the mitral valve is achieved via left atriotomy using a robotic atrial retractor. Traditional mitral repair techniques including neocords, leaet resection, plication, and annuloplasty are performed with the aid of the bedside assistant who uses long instruments introduced via the service port. When necessary, mitral replacement with either bioprosthetic or mechanical valves is performed. Concomitant procedures including atrial ablation, left atrial appendage closure, and tricuspid valvuloplasty are performed when indicated. This technique can also be used for resection of intracardiac tumors and ASD closures.

Patient Selection

There are very few absolute contraindications to robotic mitral valve surgery. As opposed to robotic coronary bypass in which a larger body habitus is a limitation, robotic mitral valve surgery is not contraindicated in these patients and exposure may even be easier than sternotomy and some right chest approaches for the mor­bidly obese patient. The only contraindications are dense right chest adhesions and vascular disease with no peripheral cannulation options. We have safely used this technique in patients who have had prior right chest cardiac surgery as well as prior cardiac surgery via sternotomy [14, 15].