Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    SAGE Publications ; 2018
    In:  Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery Vol. 13, No. 4 ( 2018-07), p. 282-286
    In: Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, SAGE Publications, Vol. 13, No. 4 ( 2018-07), p. 282-286
    Abstract: Totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) with robotic distal anastomosis and robotic-assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) with robotic internal mammary artery harvest and direct hand-sewn distal anastomosis via an anterior thoracotomy have both been reported as safe and efficacious. We compared hospital cost and short-term outcomes between these techniques. Methods Patients who underwent robotic-assisted minimally invasive single-vessel Coronary artery bypass grafting (2011–2014) were retrospectively reviewed. One hundred consecutive patients underwent either TECAB (n = 50) or RA-MIDCAB (n = 50). The two groups were sequential with TECAB performed by one surgeon in the first portion of the study interval and RA-MIDCAB by another surgeon in the latter. Demographics, short-term outcomes, and hospital cost data were compared between the two groups. Results Patient demographics and preoperative risk factors were similar between the TECAB and RA-MIDCAB groups, as total operating room time. Cardiopulmonary bypass was used for 56% of TECAB and 0% of RA-MIDCAB cases ( P 〈 0.001). Intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay, along with postoperative morbidities, were similar between the two groups. Operative mortality was 2% in the TECAB and 0% in the RA-MIDCAB group ( P = NS). Total hospital cost was significantly higher with TECAB compared with RA-MIDCAB (US $33,769 vs. $22,679, P 〈 0.001), which was primarily driven by operative costs (US $17,616 vs. $26,803, P 〈 0.001). Conclusions Totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass and RA-MIDCAB both demonstrated excellent short-term clinical outcomes. However, TECAB was associated with significantly higher hospital costs. Further comparisons, including long-term outcomes, patient satisfaction, and functional status, are needed to evaluate whether this additional cost is justified.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1556-9845 , 1559-0879
    Language: English
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Publication Date: 2018
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2223439-1
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages