Minimally Invasive versus Standard Approach for Excision of Atrial Masses
Background. Minimally invasive cardiac surgical procedures have become ubiquitous over the past decade. In many cases, these techniques have been associated with decreased morbidity, shorter length of stay, decreased pain, faster recovery, and superior cosmetic results. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes using a minimally invasive (mini-thoracotomy) versus standard (sternotomy) approach to the surgical resection of atrial masses.
Methods. Analysis was based on 34 consecutive patients who underwent atrial mass resection at the New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York, NY. The reference (REF) group included 18 patients who underwent excision of an atrial mass via a standard approach (sternotomy). The minimally invasive (MI) group included 16 patients who underwent excision of an atrial mass via a mini-thoracotomy.
Results. There were no statistically significant differences between the REF and MI groups based on demographic or preoperative characteristics. Tissue diagnosis of the masses resected included myxoma (n = 24), fibroblas-toma (n = 3), B-cell lymphoma (n = 1), and other benign masses (n = 6). Cardiopulmonary bypass (70.5 versus 76.5 minutes; P = .57) and aortic cross-clamp times (32.7 versus 47.3 minutes; P = .14) did not differ significantly between the REF and MI groups, nor did intraoperative transfusion of packed red blood cells (0.35 versus 0.38 units; P = .93). As assessed by intraoperative trans-esophageal echocardiogram, there were no moderate to severe valvular abnormalities observed following chest closure. Intensive care unit length of stay (46.1 versus 26.2 hours; P = .15), overall hospital length of stay (6.39 versus 5.06 days; P= .18), and time to extubation (0.78 versus 0.44 days; P = .44) all trended toward shorter duration in the MI group compared with the REF group—although none of these differences achieved statistical significance. Postoperative transthoracic echocardiograms were obtained in 14 of 34 (41.2%) patients; none revealed any new or significant abnormalities. All patients survived to hospital discharge; one patient in the REF group expired during the follow-up period. Among the 34 patients, 26 patients (76.4%) were at least 2 years postoperative from their resection; 25 of the 26 (96.1%) were alive at 2-year follow-up, and the remaining 8 were alive at 1-year follow-up. All patients were free of recurrence at last follow-up.
Conclusions. Minimally invasive atrial mass excisions can be accomplished reliably without compromising complete tumor resection and without significant increases in operative times or serious adverse events. In addition, measures of recovery time in this study suggest faster recovery among the MI group, which is consistent with the proposed advantages by proponents of minimally invasive surgery.
Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS, et al. 1997. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg 226:421-8.nCooley DA. 1998. Minimally invasive valve surgery versus the conventional approach. Ann Thorac Surg 66:1101-5.nCosgrove DM, Sabik JF, Navie J. 1998. Minimally invasive valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg 65:1535-9.nFann JI, Pompili MF, Burdon TA, et al. 1997. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 9:320-30.nFrazier BL, Derrick MJ, Purewal SS, et al. 1998. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 14(suppl 1):S122-5.nGillinov AM, Cosgrove DM. 1999. Minimally invasive valve surgery: mini-sternotomy with extended transseptal approach. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 11:206-11.nGlower DD, Landolfo KP, Clements F, et al. 1998. Mitral valve operation via port access versus median sternotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 14(suppl 1):S143-7.nGrossi EA, LaPietra A, Ribakove GH, et al. 2001. Minimally invasive versus sternotomy approaches for mitral reconstruction: comparison of intermediate-term results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 121:708-13.nGrossi EA, Zakow PK, Ribakove G, et al. 1999. Comparison of postoperative pain, stress response, and quality of life in port access vs. standard sternotomy coronary bypass patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 16(suppl 2):S39-42.nMorgan JA, Peacock JC, Kohmoto T, et al. 2004. Robotic techniques improve quality of life in patients undergoing atrial septal defect repair. Ann Thorac Surg 77:1328-33.nRavikumar E, Pawar N, Gnanamuthu R, et al. 2000. Minimal access approach for surgical management of cardiac tumors. Ann Thorac Surg 70:1077-9.nReynen K. 1995. Cardiac myxomas. N England J Med 33:1610-7.nShennib H, Mack MJ. 1998. Facts and myths of minimally invasive cardiac surgery: current trends in thoracic surgery IV. Ann Thorac Surg 66:995-1120.nVerrier ED. 1998. Editorial (pro) re minimally invasive port-access mitral valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 115:565-6.nWare JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, et al. 1995. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 33(suppl 4):AS264-79.n
How to Cite
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).