A concern with the initiation of totally endoscopic robotic mitral valve repair (TERMR) programs has been the risk for the learning curve. To minimize this risk, we initiated a TERMR program with a defined team and structured learning approach before clinical implementation.
Methods
A dedicated team (two surgeons, one cardiac anesthesiologist, one perfusionist, and two nurses) was trained with clinical scenarios, simulations, wet laboratories, and “expert” observation for 3 months. This team then performed a series of TERMRs of varying complexity.
Results
Thirty-two isolated TERMRs were performed during the first programmatic year. All operations included mitral valve repair, left atrial appendage exclusion, and annuloplasty device implantation. Additional procedures included leaflet resection, neochordae insertion, atrial ablation, and papillary muscle shortening. Longer clamp times were associated with number of neochordae (P < 0.01), papillary muscle procedures (P < 0.01), and leaflet resection (P = 0.06). Sequential case number had no impact on cross-clamp time (P = 0.3). Analysis of nonclamp time demonstrated a 71.3% learning percentage (P < 0.01; ie, 28.7% reduction in nonclamp time with each doubling of case number). There were no hospital deaths or incidences of stroke, myocardial infarction, unplanned reoperation, respiratory failure, or renal failure. Median length of stay was 4 days. All patients were discharged home.
Conclusions
Totally endoscopic robotic mitral valve repair can be safely performed after a pretraining regimen with emphasis on experts’ current practice and team training. After a pretraining regimen, cross-clamp times were not subject to learning curve phenomena but were dependent on procedural complexity. Nonclamp times were associated with a short learning curve.
SuriR.M., SchaffH.V., DearaniJ.A.Survival advantage and improved durability of mitral repair for leaflet prolapse subsets in the current era. Ann Thorac Surg.2006; 82: 819–826.
2.
BraunbergerE., DelocheA., BerrebiA.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.
SharonyR., SaundersP.C., NayarA.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.
CohnL.H., AdamsD.H., CouperG.S.Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg.1997; 226: 421–428.
6.
GrossiE.A., LaPietraA., RibakoveG.H.Minimally invasive versus sternotomy approaches for mitral reconstruction: comparison of intermediate-term results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2001; 121: 708–713.
FelgerJ.E., NifongL.W., ChitwoodW.R.Jr.The evolution of and early experience with robot-assisted mitral valve surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech.2002; 12: 58–63.
9.
SuriR.M., AntielR.M., BurkhartH.M.Quality of life after early mitral valve repair using conventional and robotic approaches. Ann Thorac Surg.2012; 93: 761–769.
10.
WooY.J., NackeE.A.Robotic minimally invasive mitral valve reconstruction yields less blood product transfusion and shorter length of stay. Surgery.2006; 140: 263–267.
DoganS., AybekT., RisteskiP.S.Minimally invasive port access versus conventional mitral valve surgery: prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg.2005; 79: 492–498.
13.
ChitwoodW.R.Jr., RodriguezE., ChuM.W.Robotic mitral valve repairs in 300 patients: a single-center experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2008; 136: 436–441.
14.
RobicsekF.Robotic cardiac surgery: quo vadis?J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2003; 126: 623–624.
15.
GammieJ.S., ZhaoY., PetersonE.D., O'BrienS.M., RankinJ.S., GriffithB.P.J. Maxwell Chamberlain Memorial Paper for adult cardiac surgery. Less-invasive mitral valve operations: trends and outcomes from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg.90: 1401–1410.
16.
RobicsekF.Robotic cardiac surgery: time told!J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2008; 135: 243–246.
17.
DiodatoM.D.Jr., DamianoR.J.Jr.Robotic cardiac surgery: overview. Surg Clin North Am.2003; 83: 1351–1367, ix.
18.
CrookeG.A., SchwartzC.F., RibakoveG.H.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.
YaffeeD.W., GallowayA.C., GrossiE.A.Editorial analysis: impact of perfusion strategy on stroke risk for minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.41: 1223–1224.
20.
StevensonW.J.Operations Management.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2012.
21.
EbbinghausH.Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology.New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University; 1913.
22.
ArgoteL., EppleD.Learning curves in manufacturing. Science.1990; 247: 920–924.
23.
GarvinD.A., FieldL.C., SimpsonJ.Boeing 767: From Concept to Production.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing; 1991.
24.
AthanasiouT., AshrafianH., RowlandS.P., CasulaR.Robotic cardiac surgery: advanced minimally invasive technology hindered by barriers to adoption. Future Cardiol.2011; 7: 511–522.
Jiménez-RodríguezR.M., Díaz-PavónJ.M., de la Portilla de JuanF., Prendes-SilleroE., DussortH.C., PadilloJ.Learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis.2013; 28: 815–821.
29.
LeeJ., YunJ.H., ChoiU.J., KangS.W., JeongJ.J., ChungW.Y.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.
KangB.H., XuanY., HurH., AhnC.W., ChoY.K., HanS.U.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.
PisanoG.P., BohmerR.M.J., EdmondsonA.C.Organizational differences in rates of learning: evidence from the adoption of minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Manag Sci.2001; 47: 752–768.
33.
SuriR.M., BurkhartH.M., DalyR.C.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.
CharlandP.J., RobbinsT., RodriguezE., NifongW.L., ChitwoodR.W.Jr.Learning curve analysis of mitral valve repair using telemanipulative technology. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.2011; 142: 404–410.
35.
MishraA., CatchpoleK., DaleT., McCullochP.The influence of nontechnical performance on technical outcome in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc.2008; 22: 68–73.
36.
ChitwoodW.R.Jr., NifongL.W., ChapmanW.H.Robotic surgical training in an academic institution. Ann Surg.2001; 234: 475–486.
37.
SpiessB.D.Human error in medicine: change in cardiac operating rooms through the FOCUS initiative. J Extra Corpor Technol.2011; 43: P33–P38.
38.
MartinezE.A., ThompsonD.A., ErrettN.A.Review article: high stakes and high risk: a focused qualitative review of hazards during cardiac surgery. Anesth Analg.2011; 112: 1061–1074.
39.
PaigeJ.T.Surgical team training: promoting high reliability with nontechnical skills. Surg Clin North Am.2010; 90: 569–581.
40.
BonattiJ., SchachnerT., BonarosN.How to improve performance of robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Surg.2008; 195: 711–716.
41.
BhamidipatiC.M., MehtaG.S., SarwarM.F., SooppanR., DilipK.A., LutzC.J.Robot-assisted mitral valve repair: a single institution review. Innovations.2010; 5: 295–299.
