The Comparison between Minimally Invasive Coronary Bypass Grafting Surgery and Conventional Bypass Grafting Surgery in Proximal LAD Lesion

Authors

  • Mehmet Ezelsoy Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul
  • Baris Caynak Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Istanbul Bilim University, Istanbul
  • Muhammed Bayram Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul
  • Kerem Oral Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul
  • Zehra Bayramoglu Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul
  • Ertan Sagbas Cardiology Department, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul
  • Vedat Aytekın Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Istanbul Bilim University, Istanbul
  • Belhhan Akpınar Cardiovascular Surgery Department, Istanbul Florence Nightingale Hospital, Istanbul

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1239

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive bypass grafting surgery has entered the clincal routine in several centers around the world, with an increasing popularity in the last decade. In our study, we aimed to make a comparison between minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and conventional bypass grafting surgery in isolated proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) lesions.
Methods: Between January 2004 and December 2011, patients with proximal LAD lesions, who were treated with robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery and conventional bypass surgery, were included in the study. In Group 1, coronary bypass with cardiopulmonary bypass and complete sternotomy were applied to 35 patients and in Group 2, robotically assisted minimally invasive bypass surgery was applied to 35 patients. The demographic, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected retrospectively.
Results: The mean follow-up time of the conventional bypass group was 5.7 ± 1.7 years, whereas this ratio was 7.3 ±1.3 in the robotic group. There was no postoperative transient ischemic attack (TIA), wound infection, mortality, or need for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in any of the patients. In the conventional bypass group, blood transfusion and ventilation time were significantly higher (P < .05) than in the robotic group. The intensive care unit (ICU) stay and hospital stay were remarkably shorter in the robotic group
(P < .01). The postoperative pneumonia rate was significantly higher (20%) in the conventional bypass group
(P < .01). Postoperative day 1 pain score was higher in the robotic group (P < .05), however, postoperative day 3 pain score in the conventional bypass group was higher (P < .05). Graft patency rate was 88.6% in the conventional bypass group whereas this ratio was 91.4% in the robotic bypass group, which was not clinically significant (P > .05).
Conclusion: In isolated proximal LAD stenosis, robotic assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery requires less blood products, is associated with shorter ICU and hospital stay, and lesser pain in the early postoperative period in contrast to conventional surgery. The result of our studies, which showed similarities to the past studies, lead us to recognize the importance of minimally invasive interventions and the need to perform them more frequently in the future.

Published

2015-04-28

How to Cite

Ezelsoy, M., Caynak, B., Bayram, M., Oral, K., Bayramoglu, Z., Sagbas, E., Aytekın, V., & Akpınar, B. (2015). The Comparison between Minimally Invasive Coronary Bypass Grafting Surgery and Conventional Bypass Grafting Surgery in Proximal LAD Lesion. The Heart Surgery Forum, 18(2), E042-E046. https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1239

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>