Pain and the Quality of Life Following Robotic Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgery
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1606Abstract
Objective: Minimally invasive bypass grafting is a promising surgical treatment in proximal LAD stenosis procedures. The main goal of this study was to make comparisons between robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary bypass surgery and conventional surgery in isolated proximal LAD lesions in terms of pain and quality of life improvement.Methods: The study contains patients with proximal LAD lesions who were treated with robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery and conventional bypass surgery between June 2005 and November 2012. Fifty patients treated with coronary bypass with cardiopulmonary bypass and complete sternotomy were categorized as Group 1. Fifty patients who applied for robotically assisted minimally invasive bypass surgery were categorized as Group 2. The evaluations of pain and quality of life were done according to the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and SF-36 health survey questionnaire, respectively.
Results: The conventional bypass group and robotic group had 4.8 ± 1.9 years and 4.3 ± 1.6 years mean follow-up time, respectively. The robotic bypass group had a significantly shorter ICU stay and hospital stay than the conventional bypass group (P < .05). The pain score was higher in the robotic bypass group on the 1st postoperative day
(P < .05), but the score on the 4th postoperative day was higher in the conventional bypass group (P < .05). In terms of domains of the SF-36 questionnaire, patient scores were significantly higher in patients who were operated with robotically assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) procedure than in patients who were operated with conventional bypass technique.
Conclusion: Patients operated with robotically assisted MIDCAB procedure had results with lesser pain, shorter ICU stay, and shorter hospital stay than the other group in isolated proximal LAD stenosis. The same group also had better quality of life results according to the SF-36 questionnaire results.
References
Al-Ruzzeh S, Mazrani W, Wray J, et al. 2004. The clinical outcome and quality of life following minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery. J Card Surg 19:12-16.
Birla R, Patel P, Aresu G, Asimakopoulos G. 2013. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus off-pump coronary surgery through sternotomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95:481-5.
Bonatti J, Ladurner R, Antretter H, et al. 1998. Single coronary artery bypass grafting a comparison between minimally invasive ‘off pump’ techniques and conventional procedures. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 14(Suppl)1: S7-12.
Calafiore AM, Di Giammarco G, Teodori G, Mazzei V, Vitolla G. 1998. Recent advances in multivessel coronary grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass. Heart Surg Forum 1:20-5.
Cisowski M, Morawski W, Drzewiecki J, et al. 2002. Primary stenting versus MIDCAB: Preliminary report–comparison of two methods of revascularization in single left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg 74:1334-9.
Detter C, Reichenspurner H, Boehm DH, et al. 2002. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) and off-pump coronary artery 34 bypass grafting (OPCAB): two techniques for beating heart surgery. Heart Surg Forum 5:157-62.
Diegeler et al. 1999. Comparison of MIDAB versus conventional CABG surgery regarding pain and quality of life. Heart Surg Forum 2:290-5.
Diegeler A, Spyrantis N, Matin M, et al. 2000. The revival of surgical treatment for isolated proximal high grade LAD lesions by minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 17:501-4.
Emmert MY, Salzberg SP, Cetina Biefer HR, et al. 2012. Total arterial off-pump surgery provides excellent outcomes and does not compromise complete revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 41:e25-1.
Falk V, Diegleler A, Walther T, et al. 2000. Total endoscopic computer enhanced coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 17:38-45.
Holzhey DM, Cornely JP, Rastan AJ, Davierwala P, Mohr FW. 2012. Review of a 13-year single-center experience with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass as the primary surgical treatment of coronary artery disease. Heart Surg Forum 15:E61-8.
Ishikawa N, Watanabe G. 2015. Robot-assisted mitral valve plasty. Kyobu Geka 68:30-4.
Jansen EW, Grundeman PF, Borst C, et al. 1997. Less invasive off-pump CABG using a suction device for immobilization: the ‘Octopus’ method. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 12:406-12.
Kiaii B, McClure RS, Stitt L. 2006. Prospective angiographic comparison of direct, endoscopic, and telesurgical approaches to harvesting the internal thoracic artery. Ann Thorac Surg 82:624-9.
Kurtoğlu M, Ateş S, Demirozu T, Duvan I, Karagoz HY, Aybek T. 2008. Facile stabilization and exposure techniques in off-pump coronary bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 85:e30-1.
Magovern JA, Benckart DH, Landreneau RJ, Sakert T, Magovern GJ Jr. 1998. Morbidity, cost, and six-month outcome of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 68:1224-9.
Seco, Cao C, Modi P, et al. 2013. Systematic review of robotic mitral surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2:704-16.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. 1992. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473-3.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Author Disclosure & Copyright Transfer Agreement
In order to publish the original work of another person(s), The Heart Surgery Forum® must receive an acknowledgment of the Author Agreement and Copyright Transfer Statement transferring to Forum Multimedia Publishing, L.L.C., a subsidiary of Carden Jennings Publishing Co., Ltd. the exclusive rights to print and distribute the author(s) work in all media forms. Failure to check Copyright Transfer agreement box below will delay publication of the manuscript.
A current form follows:
The author(s) hereby transfer(s), assign(s), or otherwise convey(s) all copyright ownership of the manuscript submitted to Forum Multimedia Publishing, LLC (Publisher). The copyright transfer covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article and the material contained therein throughout the world in all languages and in all media of expression now known or later developed, including but not limited to reprints, photographic reproduction, microfilm, electronic data processing (including programming, storage, and transmission to other electronic data record(s), or any other reproductions of similar nature), and translations.
However, Publisher grants back to the author(s) the following:
- The right to make and distribute copies of all or part of this work for use of the author(s) in teaching;
- The right to use, after publication in The Heart Surgery Forum, all or part of the material from this work in a book by the author(s), or in a collection of work by the author(s);
- The royalty-free right to make copies of this work for internal distribution within the institution/company that employs the author(s) subject to the provisions below for a work-made-for-hire;
- The right to use figures and tables from this work, and up to 250 words of text, for any purpose;
- The right to make oral presentations of material from this work.
Publisher reserves the right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. To republish, such third parties must obtain written permission from the Publisher. (This is in accordance with the Copyright Statute, United States Code, Title 17. Exception: If all authors were bona fide officers or employees of the U.S. Government at the time the paper was prepared, the work is a “work of the US Government” (prepared by an officer or employee of the US Government as part of official duties), and therefore is not subject to US copyright; such exception should be indicated on signature lines. If this work was prepared under US Government contract or grant, the US Government may reproduce, royalty-free, all or portions of this work and may authorize others to do so, for official US Government purposes only, if the US Government contract or grant so requires.
I have participated in the conception and design of this work and in the writing of the manuscript and take public responsibility for it. Neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my authorship has been published, has been submitted for publication elsewhere, or will be submitted for publication elsewhere while under consideration by The Heart Surgery Forum, except as described in an attachment. I have reviewed this manuscript (original version) and approve its submission. If I am listed above as corresponding author, I will provide all authors with information regarding this manuscript and will obtain their approval before submitting any revision. I attest to the validity, accuracy, and legitimacy of the content of the manuscript and understand that Publisher assumes no responsibility for the validity, accuracy, and legitimacy of its content. I warrant that this manuscript is original with me and that I have full power to make this Agreement. I warrant that it contains no matter that is libelous or otherwise unlawful or that invades individual privacy or infringes any copyright or other proprietary right. I agree to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless of and from any claim made against Publisher that relates to or arises out of the publication of the manuscript and agree that this indemnification shall include payment of all costs and expenses relating to the defense of any such claim, including all reasonable attorney’s fees.
I warrant that I have no financial interest in the drugs, devices, or procedures described in the manuscript (except as disclosed in the attached statement).
I state that the institutional Human Subjects Committee and/or the Ethics Committee approved the clinical protocol reported in this manuscript for the use of experimental techniques, drugs, or devices in human subjects and appropriate informed consent documents were utilized.
Furthermore, I state that any and all animals used for experimental purposes received humane care in USDA registered facilities in compliance with the “Principles of Laboratory Animal Care” formulated by the National Society for Medical Research and the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” prepared by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication No. 85-23, revised 1985).
