Can the learning curve of totally endoscopic robotic mitral valve repair be short-circuited?

Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 43-48

  Yaffee, David W ^a   Loulmet, Didier F ^a   Kelly, Lauren A ^a   Ward, Alison F ^a   Ursomanno, Patricia A ^a   Rabinovich, Annette E ^a   Neuburger, Peter J ^b   Krishnan, Sandeep ^b   Hill, Frederick T ^a   Grossi, Eugene A ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b Departments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology and Toxicology   (United States)

Author keywords

Endoscopy; Learning curve; Mitral repair; Robotic cardiac surgery

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANESTHESIST; AORTA CLAMPING; ARTICLE; CARDIOPLEGIA; CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; ENDOSCOPY; FEMALE; HEART SURGERY; HEART VALVE SURGERY; HUMAN; LEARNING CURVE; LENGTH OF STAY; MALE; MITRAL ANNULOPLASTY; MITRAL VALVE REGURGITATION; MITRAL VALVE REPAIR; MITRAL VALVE REPLACEMENT; NURSE; OPERATING ROOM PERSONNEL; OPERATION DURATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROBOTICS; STAFF TRAINING; SURGEON; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TEAMWORK; TOTALLY ENDOSCOPIC ROBOTIC MITRAL VALVE REPAIR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, CONTINUING; ENDOSCOPY; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HUMANS; LEARNING CURVE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MITRAL VALVE INSUFFICIENCY; ROBOTICS; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84896393138     PISSN: 15569845     EISSN: 15590879     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/IMI.0000000000000039     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Suri RM, Schaff HV, Dearani JA, et al. Survival advantage and improved durability of mitral repair for leaflet prolapse subsets in the current era. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:819-826.
2. Braunberger E, Deloche A, Berrebi A, et al. Very long-term results (more than 20 years) of valve repair with carpentier's techniques in nonrheumatic mitral valve insufficiency. Circulation. 2001;104(suppl 1):I8-I11.
3. Sharony R, Saunders PC, Nayar A, et al. Semirigid partial annuloplasty band allows dynamic mitral annular motion and minimizes valvular gradients: an echocardiographic study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:518-522.
4. American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease); Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing Committee to Revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease) developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:e1-e148.
5. Cohn LH, AdamsDH, Couper GS, et al.Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg. 1997;226:421-428.
6. Grossi EA, LaPietra A, Ribakove GH, et al. Minimally invasive versus sternotomy approaches for mitral reconstruction: comparison of intermediate-term results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;121:708-713.
7. Seeburger J, Borger MA, Falk V, et al. Minimal invasive mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation: results of 1339 consecutive patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;34:760-765.
8. Felger JE, Nifong LW, Chitwood WR Jr. The evolution of and early experience with robot-assisted mitral valve surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002;12:58-63.
9. 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;93:761-769.
10. Woo YJ, Nacke EA. Robotic minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction yields less blood product transfusion and shorter length of stay. Surgery. 2006;140:263-267.
11. Folliguet T, Vanhuyse F, Constantino X, Realli M, Laborde F. Mitral valve repair robotic versus sternotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;29: 362-366.
12. Dogan S, Aybek T, Risteski PS, et al. Minimally invasive port access versus conventional mitral valve surgery: prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:492-498.
13. ChitwoodWRJr, Rodriguez E, ChuMW, et al. Robotic mitral valve repairs in 300 patients: a single-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136:436-441.
14. Robicsek F. Robotic cardiac surgery: quo vadis? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:623-624.
15. Gammie JS, Zhao Y, Peterson ED, O'Brien SM, Rankin JS, Griffith BP. J. Maxwell Chamberlain Memorial Paper for adult cardiac surgery. Lessinvasive mitral valve operations: trends and outcomes from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 90:1401-1410.
16. Robicsek F. Robotic cardiac surgery: time told! J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:243-246.
17. Diodato MD Jr, Damiano RJ Jr. Robotic cardiac surgery: overview. Surg Clin North Am. 2003;83:1351-1367, ix.
18. Crooke GA, Schwartz CF, Ribakove GH, et al. Retrograde arterial perfusion, not incision location, significantly increases the risk of stroke in reoperative mitral valve procedures. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:723-730.
19. Yaffee DW, Galloway AC, Grossi EA. Editorial analysis: impact of perfusion strategy on stroke risk for minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 41:1223-1224.
20. Stevenson WJ. Operations Management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2012.
21. Ebbinghaus H. Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University; 1913.
22. Argote L, Epple D. Learning curves in manufacturing. Science. 1990;247: 920-924.
23. Garvin DA, Field LC, Simpson J. Boeing 767: From Concept to Production. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing; 1991.
24. Athanasiou T, Ashrafian H, Rowland SP, Casula R. Robotic cardiac surgery: advanced minimally invasive technology hindered by barriers to adoption. Future Cardiol. 2011;7:511-522.
25. Cela V, Freschi L, Simi G, Ruggiero M, Tana R, Pluchino N. Robotic single-site hysterectomy: feasibility, learning curve and surgical outcome. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:2638-2643.
26. Tasian GE, Wiebe DJ, Casale P. Learning curve of robotic assisted pyeloplasty for pediatric urology fellows. J Urol. 2013;190(suppl): 1622-1626.
27. Woelk JL, Casiano ER,Weaver AL, Gostout BS, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB. The learning curve of robotic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121:87-95.
28. Jimenez-Rodrguez RM, Daz-Pavon JM, de la Portilla de Juan F, Prendes-Sillero E, Dussort HC, Padillo J. Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28: 815-821.
29. Lee J, Yun JH, Choi UJ, Kang SW, Jeong JJ, Chung WY. Robotic versus endoscopic thyroidectomy for thyroid cancers: a multi-institutional analysis of early postoperative outcomes and surgical learning curves. J Oncol. 2012;2012:734541.
30. Kang BH, Xuan Y, Hur H, Ahn CW, Cho YK, Han SU. Comparison of surgical outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: the learning curve of robotic surgery. J Gastric Cancer. 2012;12:156-163.
31. Gao C, Yang M, Xiao C, et al. Robotically assisted mitral valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(suppl):S64-S67.
32. Pisano GP, Bohmer RMJ, Edmondson AC. Organizational differences in rates of learning: evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Manag Sci. 2001;47:752-768.
33. 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;142:970-979.
34. Charland PJ, Robbins T, Rodriguez E, Nifong WL, Chitwood RW Jr. Learning curve analysis of mitral valve repair using telemanipulative technology. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:404-410.
35. Mishra A, Catchpole K, Dale T, McCulloch P. The influence of nontechnical performance on technical outcome in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:68-73.
36. Chitwood WR Jr, Nifong LW, Chapman WH, et al. Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann Surg. 2001;234:475-486.
37. Spiess BD. Human error in medicine: change in cardiac operating rooms through the FOCUS initiative. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2011;43: P33-P38.
38. Martinez EA, Thompson DA, Errett NA, et al. Review article: high stakes and high risk: a focused qualitative review of hazards during cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:1061-1074.
39. Paige JT. Surgical team training: promoting high reliability with nontechnical skills. Surg Clin North Am. 2010;90:569-581.
40. Bonatti J, Schachner T, Bonaros N, et al. How to improve performance of robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Surg. 2008;195:711-716.
41. Bhamidipati CM, Mehta GS, Sarwar MF, Sooppan R, Dilip KA, Lutz CJ. Robot-assisted mitral valve repair: a single institution review. Innovations. 2010;5:295-299.
42. Murphy DA, Miller JS, Langford DA, Snyder AB. Endoscopic robotic mitral valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132:776-781.
43. 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.
44. Nifong LW, Rodriguez E, Chitwood WR Jr. 540 consecutive robotic mitral valve repairs including concomitant atrial fibrillation cryoablation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;94:38-43.