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.
