3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Learning curve in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a single-center experience

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is becoming a gold standard and provides many advantages for patients. A learning curve is required for a surgeon to become proficient, and the exact number to overcome this curve is controversial. Our study aimed to define this number for mitral valve surgery in general, for replacement and repair separately.

          Methods

          A total of 204 mitral valve surgeries were performed via the right minithoracotomy approach from October 2014 to January 2019 by a single surgeon who isexperienced in conventional mitral valve surgery. Learning curves were analysed based on the trend of important variables (cross-clamp time, CPB time, ventilation time, ICU time, composite technical failure) over time, and the number of operations required was calculated by CUSUM method.

          Results

          MIMVS provided an excellent outcome in the carefully selected patients, with low mortality of 0.5% and low rate of complications. The decreasing trend of the important variables were observed over the years and as the cumulative number of procedures increased. The number of operations required to overcome the learning curve was 75 to 100 cases. When considered separately, the quantity for mitral valve replacement was 60 cases, whereas valve repair necessitated at least 90 cases to have an acceptable technical complication rate.

          Conclusion

          MIMVS is an excellent choice for mitral valve surgery. However, this approach required a long learning curve for a surgeon who is experienced in conventional mitral valve surgery.

          Trial registration

          The research was registered and approved by the ethical board of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, number 141/DHYD-HDDD, on April 11th 2018.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          The mitral valve has been traditionally approached through a median sternotomy. However, significant advances in surgical optics, instrumentation, tissue telemanipulation, and perfusion technology have allowed for mitral valve surgery to be performed using progressively smaller incisions including the minithoracotomy and hemisternotomy. Due to reports of excellent results, minimally invasive mitral valve surgery has become a standard of care at certain specialized centers worldwide. This meta-analysis quantifies the effects of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery on morbidity and mortality compared with conventional mitral surgery and demonstrates equivalent perioperative mortality (1641 patients, odds ratio (OR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.15-1.42, p=0.18), reduced need for reoperation for bleeding (1553 patients, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.90, p=0.02) and a trend towards shorter hospital stays (350 patients, weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.73, 95% CI -1.52 to 0.05, p=0.07). These benefits were evident despite longer cardiopulmonary bypass (WMD 25.81, 95% CI 13.13-38.50, p<0.0001) and cross-clamp times (WMD 20.91, 95% CI 8.79-33.04, p=0.0007) in the minimally invasive group. Case-control studies show consistently less pain and faster recovery compared to those having a conventional approach. Data for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery after previous cardiac surgery are limited but consistently demonstrate reduced blood loss, fewer transfusions and faster recovery compared to reoperative sternotomy. Long-term follow-up data from multiple cohort studies are also examined revealing equivalent survival and freedom from reoperation. Thus, current clinical data suggest that minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is a safe and a durable alternative to a conventional approach and is associated with less morbidity.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Learning minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a cumulative sum sequential probability analysis of 3895 operations from a single high-volume center.

            Learning curves are vigorously discussed and viewed as a negative aspect of adopting new procedures. However, very few publications have methodically examined learning curves in cardiac surgery, which could lead to a better understanding and a more meaningful discussion of their consequences. The purpose of this study was to assess the learning process involved in the performance of minimally invasive surgery of the mitral valve using data from a large, single-center experience.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Minimally invasive versus conventional open mitral valve surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

              : This meta-analysis sought to determine whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVS) improves clinical outcomes and resource utilization compared with conventional open mitral valve surgery (conv-MVS) in patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement. : A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CTSnet, and databases of abstracts was undertaken to identify all randomized and nonrandomized studies up to March 2010 of mini-MVS through thoracotomy versus conv-MVS through median sternotomy for mitral valve repair or replacement. Outcomes of interest included death, stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic dissection, need for reintervention, and any other reported clinically relevant outcomes or indicator of resource utilization. Relative risk and weighted mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were analyzed as appropriate using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was measured using the I statistic. : Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (two randomized controlled trials and 33 nonrandomized studies). The mortality rate after mini-MVS versus conv-MVS was similar at 30 days (1.2% vs 1.5%), 1 year (0.9% vs 1.3%), 3 years (0.5% vs 0.5%), and 9 years (0% vs 3.7%). A number of clinical outcomes were significantly improved with mini-MVS versus conv-MVS including atrial fibrillation (18% vs 22%), chest tube drainage (578 vs 871 mL), transfusions, sternal infection (0.04% vs 0.27%), time to return to normal activity, and patient scar satisfaction. However, the 30-day risk of stroke (2.1% vs 1.2%), aortic dissection/injury (0.2% vs 0%), groin infection (2% vs 0%), and phrenic nerve palsy (3% vs 0%) were significantly increased for mini-MVS versus conv-MVS. Other clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and procedure time were significantly increased with mini-MVS; however, ventilation time and length of stay in intensive care unit and hospital were reduced. : Current evidence suggests that mini-MVS maybe associated with decreased bleeding, blood product transfusion, atrial fibrillation, sternal wound infection, scar dissatisfaction, ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and reduced time to return to normal activity, without detected adverse impact on long-term need for valvular reintervention and survival beyond 1 year. However, these potential benefits for mini-MVS may come with an increased risk of stroke, aortic dissection or aortic injury, phrenic nerve palsy, groin infections/complications, and increased cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and procedure time. Available evidence is largely limited to retrospective comparisons of small cohorts comparing mini-MVS versus conv-MVS that provide only short-term outcomes. Given these limitations, randomized controlled trials with adequate power and duration of follow-up to measure clinically relevant outcomes are recommended to determine the balance of benefits and risks.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                nguyenhoangdinh@yahoo.com
                Journal
                J Cardiothorac Surg
                J Cardiothorac Surg
                Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
                BioMed Central (London )
                1749-8090
                5 December 2019
                5 December 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 213
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0468 9247, GRID grid.413054.7, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Medical Center, , University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, ; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
                [2 ]Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0468 9247, GRID grid.413054.7, Department of Internal Medicine, , University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, ; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0468 9247, GRID grid.413054.7, Department of Surgery, , University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, ; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8273-681X
                Article
                1038
                10.1186/s13019-019-1038-0
                6896294
                31806039
                269b68cb-3f98-4daf-885d-6e45cc97063f
                © The Author(s). 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 28 August 2019
                : 20 November 2019
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Surgery
                learning curve,minimally invasive cardiac surgery,mitral valve surgery
                Surgery
                learning curve, minimally invasive cardiac surgery, mitral valve surgery

                Comments

                Comment on this article