Commentary
In this issue of the Journal of Cardiac Surgery, Zheng et al. demonstrate that robotic mitral valve repair provided comparable short- and mid-term survival and freedom from mitral valve reoperation when compared to mini-thoracotomy approach in a propensity matched cohort [1]. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) with a mini-thoracotomy approach was first described in 1998 [2], followed by the first robotic assisted MIMVS performed by the same group [3]. In the United States, after the da Vinci surgical system was approved in 2002 following FDA trials lead by Chitwood, Nifong and colleagues [4, 5], the number of both mini-thoracotomy and robotic assisted MIMVS has dramatically increased over the last 20 years [6]. This trend has been encouraged by favorable short-term outcomes of both MIMVS approaches reported in several meta-analysis and retrospective studies in high-volume centers. Almost all the studies comparing sternotomy versus mini-thoracotomy [7-11], or sternotomy versus robotic assisted MIMVS [12-18], demonstrated similar findings in that both MIMVS approaches provided better short-term outcomes including shorter hospital stay, less need for blood transfusions, lower incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation, and earlier return to normal activity despite the longer procedure time compared to sternotomy. Mid-term outcomes of mini-thoracotomy [8] and robotic assisted MIMVS [13] were also equivalent to a sternotomy approach. Although, the safety and feasibility of the two MIMVS approaches have been verified, as the authors mentioned, there has been a paucity of data directly comparing mini thoracotomy versus a robotic assisted approach in the literature. One study investigating these two MIMVS approaches was a propensity matched analysis conducted by Mihaljevic et al. who found that robotic assisted MIMVS resulted in longer procedure times, but lower rates of atrial fibrillation resulting in shorter length of hospital stay compared to mini-thoracotomy MIMVS [19]. Hawking et al. compared 295 propensity matched patients who underwent MIMVS with either mini-thoracotomy or robotic assisted approach and concluded that robotic assisted MIMVS had higher rate of atrial fibrillation, more need for blood transfusions and longer length of hospital stay [20]. Regarding long-term outcome comparisons, a propensity matched study by Barac et al. demonstrated 5-year mortality of 3 % and incidence of mitral valve reoperation of 3 %, which did not differ between robotic assisted MIMVS and mini-thoracotomy MIMVS [21]. Although further studies including randomized controlled trials would be warranted on this topic, most surgeons and institutions focus on one or the other of these techniques making it difficult to achieve meaningful randomization. In addition, the current evidence points to the fact that both mini-thoracotomy and robotic assisted MIMVS provide similar short- and long-term outcomes in terms of morbidity and mortality.
Even with equivalent clinical outcomes seen in the two MIMVS approaches, we think that the most crucial advantage of using robotic technology is the excellent visualization afforded by the high-definition three-dimensional camera in current robotic systems. In addition to that, wristed instruments and the dynamic manipulability of a left atrial retractor facilitate excellent exposure of mitral valve and the meticulous execution of complex repair techniques (e.g., neo-chord implantation, leaflet resection, and patch reconstruction) all while using a port only approach. With the aid of these technologies, several centers have recently reported excellent clinical outcomes of robotic assisted MIMVS. The largest series of robotic assisted MIMVS to date was published by Murphy et al in 2015, who reviewed outcomes of 1257 patients with short-term mortality of 0.9% and incidence of mitral valve reoperation of 3.8 % at a mean follow-up of 50 months [22]. The Cleveland Clinic group reported outcomes of 1000 robotic assisted MIMVS cases and showed excellent short-term mortality of 0.1 % [23]. Other centers also reported similar short-term results of their series of hundreds of patients undergoing robotic MIMVS [24, 25]. Chitwood et al. reported long-term outcomes of robotic assisted MIMVS with a 5-year mortality of 3.4 % and incidence of mitral valve reoperation of 6.2 % [26]. Mayo Clinic reviewed 487 robotic assisted MIMVS cases and found that the 5-year mortality was 0.5 % and the incidence of reoperation was 2.3 % [27]. The same institution published 10-year outcomes of 843 patients with a mortality of 7 % and incidence of mitral valve reoperation of 7.4 % in 2021 [28]. These long-term outcomes were comparable to the sternotomy data published in previous reports [29, 30]. Some centers have assessed the feasibility of robotic assisted MIMVS in a wide range of mitral pathologies with more complex repair techniques (e.g., bileaflet repair, mitral annular calcification excision) [31-33]. Fujita et al. reported that patients who underwent robotic assisted MIMVS had a higher complexity score requiring more complex repairs than patients undergoing mini-thoracotomy MIMVS [32]. Neo-chord implantation was attempted more in robotic assisted MIMVS though procedure times did not differ between the two groups. Regarding complexity, Rowe et al. conducted robotic MIMVS for Barlow type mitral disease with 5-year freedom from greater than moderate mitral regurgitation of 92 %, which was similar to non-Barlow disease [33].
In our own practice the senior author has been performing sternal sparing mitral valve surgery since 2003 which began as a mini-thoracotomy approach and gradually transitioned to an all-robotic approach around 2010. The impetus to moving to a robotic approach was to minimize the size of the ports and transition to a truly endoscopic procedure, while adding the benefits of dexterity and improved visualization. In our current practice we perform endoscopic robotic MIMVS as a standard treatment for both simple and complex mitral valve disease. Based on our experience, the key to safely perform robotic MIMVS for a wide range of patients with various types of mitral pathology is to have a dedicated robotic team for whom the robot is a routine addition in the operating room. Another key factor is a thorough understanding of peripheral perfusion techniques and myocardial protection options. In particular, having several cardiac arrest options is important. We routinely utilize 3 modalities which are transthoracic aortic clamp, endoaortic balloon occlusion and ventricular fibrillatory arrest based on patient and technical factors. In general, transthoracic aortic clamp is the most used in mini-thoracotomy MIMVS and is the easiest to master. The endoballoon however may be more attractive in re-operative procedures and to avoid the need for a separate aortic antegrade catheter puncture site. On the other hand, if the patient has a competent aortic valve and a patent IMA graft, moderate hypothermic ventricular fibrillatory arrest can be an option in less complex repairs.
These considerations are obviously important in non-robotic approaches to MIMVS as well.
Finally, cost considerations have forced many programs interested in MIMVS to adopt a non-robotic platform. Recent advances in non-robotic 3D visualization have helped enhance this approach. As can be seen by this study from Zheng et al and from prior publications in the literature, excellent outcomes can and should be expected in MIMVS whether or not a robotic platform is used.
References
  1. Robotic vs. Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Repair: A 5-Year Comparison of Surgical Outcomes
  2. Carpentier A, Loulmet D, Carpentier A, et al. First open heart operation (mitral valvuloplasty) under videosurgery through a minithoracotomy. CR Acad Sci Paris. Life. 1996;319:221-225
  3. Carpentier A, Loulmet D, Aupècle B, et al. Computer assisted open heart surgery. First case operated on with success. C R Acad Sci III 1998;321:437-42
  4. Chitwood WR, Nifong LW, Elbeery JE, et al. Robotic mitral valve repair: trapezoidal resection and prosthetic annuloplasty with the da Vinci surgical system. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120:1171-1172
  5. Nifong LW, Chu VF, Bailey BM, et al. Robotic mitral valve repair: experience with the da Vinci system. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75:438-443
  6. Gammie JS, Chikwe J, Badhwar V, et al. Isolated mitral valve surgery: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;106(3):716-727
  7. Cheng DCH, Martin J, Lal A, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional open mitral valve surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Innovations (Phila). 2011;6:84-103.
  8. Sá MPBO, Van den Eynde J, Cavalcanti LRP, et al. Mitral valve repair with minimally invasive approaches vs sternotomy: A meta-analysis of early and late results in randomized and matched observational studies. J Card Surg. 2020 Sep;35(9):2307-2323
  9. Eqbal AJ, Gupta S, Basha A, et al. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery versus conventional sternotomy mitral valve surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 119 studies. J Card Surg. 2022 May;37(5):1319-1327
  10. Sündermann SH, Sromicki J, Rodriguez Cetina Biefer H, et al. Mitral valve surgery: Right lateral minithoracotomy or sternotomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Nov;148(5):1989-1995.e4
  11. Svensson LG, Atik FA, Cosgrove DM, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve surgery: A propensity-matched comparison. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 Apr;139(4):926-32.e1-2
  12. Cao C, Wolfenden H, Liou K, et al. A meta-analysis of robotic vs. conventional mitral valve surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015;4(4):305-14
  13. Wang A, Brennan JM, Zhang S, et al. Robotic Mitral Valve Repair in Older Individuals: An Analysis of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 Nov;106(5):1388-1393
  14. Takagi H, Hari Y, Nakashima K, et al. Meta-analysis of propensity matched studies of robotic versus conventional mitral valve surgery. J Cardiol. 2020 Feb;75(2):177-181
  15. Suri RM, Burkhart HM, Daly RC, et al. Robotic mitral valve repair for all prolapse subsets using techniques identical to open valvuloplasty: establishing the benchmark against which percutaneous interventions should be judged. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:970-9
  16. Paul S, Isaacs AJ, Jalbert J, et al. A population-based analysis of robotic-assisted mitral valve repair. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:1546-53
  17. Suri RM, Antiel RM, Burkhart HM, et al. Quality of life after early mitral valve repair using conventional and robotic approaches. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:761-9
  18. Yokoyama Y, Takagi H, Kuno T, et al. Conventional sternotomy versus right mini-thoracotomy versus robotic approach for mitral valve replacement/repair: insights from a network meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2022 Aug;63(4):492-497
  19. Mihaljevic T, Jarrett CM, Gillinov AM, et al. Robotic repair of posterior mitral valve prolapse versus conventional approaches: potential realized. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:72-80
  20. Hawkins RB, Mehaffey JH, Mullen MG, et al. A Propensity Matched Analysis of Robotic, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Mitral Valve Surgery. Heart. 2018 Dec;104(23):1970-1975
  21. Barac YD, Loungani RS, Sabulsky R, et al. Robotic versus port‐access mitral repair: A propensity score Analysis. J Card Surg. 2021 Apr;36(4):1219-1225
  22. Murphy DA, Moss E, Binongo J, et al. The expanding role of endoscopic robotics in mitral valve surgery: 1,257 consecutive procedures. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:1675-82
  23. Gillinov AM, Mihaljevic T, Javadikasgari H, et al. Early results of robotically assisted mitral valve surgery: Analysis of the first 1000 cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Jan;155(1):82-91.e2
  24. Yoo JS, Kim JB, Jung S-H, et al. Mitral durability after robotic mitral valve repair: analysis of 200 consecutive mitral regurgitation repairs. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2773-2779
  25. Ramzy D, Trento A, Cheng W, et al. Three hundred robotic-assisted mitral valve repairs: the Cedars-Sinai experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:228-235
  26. Chitwood WR Jr, Rodriguez E, Chu MWA, et al. Robotic mitral valve repairs in 300 patients: a single-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136:436-441
  27. Suri RM, Taggarse A, Burkhart HM, et al. Robotic mitral valve repair for simple and complex degenerative disease: midterm clinical and echocardiographic quality outcomes. Circulation. 2015;132:1961-8
  28. Arghami A, Jahanian S, Daly RC, et al. Robotic Mitral Valve Repair: A Decade of Experience with echocardiographic Follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021 Nov 18:S0003-4975(21)01919-6
  29. Suri RM, Clavel M-A, Schaff HV, et al. Effect of recurrent mitral regurgitation following degenerative mitral valve repair: long-term analysis of competing outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67: 488-498
  30. Mohty D, Orszulak TA, Schaff HV, et al. Very long-term survival and durability of mitral valve repair for mitral valve prolapse. Circulation. 2001;104(suppl 1):I1-I7
  31. Loulmet DF, Ranganath NK, Neuburger PJ, et al. Can complex mitral valve repair be performed with robotics? An institution’s experience utilizing a dedicated team approach in 500 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019;56:470–8
  32. Fujita T, Kakuta T, Kawamoto N, et al. Benefits of robotically-assisted surgery for complex mitral valve repair. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021 Apr 8;32(3):417-425
  33. Rowe G, Gill G, Trento A, et al. Robotic repair for Barlow mitral regurgitation: Repairability, safety, and durability. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Jun 1:S0022-5223(22)00628-6