Robotic Congenital Cardiac Surgery Practice Worldwide: A Systematic Review

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiac Surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1155/jocs/4692522
Madonna E. Lee, Andrea Amabile, Irbaz Hameed, James Antonios, Ahmed K. Awad, Alexandria Brackett, Markus Krane, Peter J. Gruber, Arnar Geirsson
{"title":"Robotic Congenital Cardiac Surgery Practice Worldwide: A Systematic Review","authors":"Madonna E. Lee,&nbsp;Andrea Amabile,&nbsp;Irbaz Hameed,&nbsp;James Antonios,&nbsp;Ahmed K. Awad,&nbsp;Alexandria Brackett,&nbsp;Markus Krane,&nbsp;Peter J. Gruber,&nbsp;Arnar Geirsson","doi":"10.1155/jocs/4692522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><b>Background:</b> With the increasing adoption of robotic technology in adult cardiac surgery patients, improved surgeon experience and wider utilization have been reported. However, interpreting trends in robotic congenital surgery is more challenging. By performing a systematic review, the authors aim to evaluate the current literature on robotic congenital operations.</p>\n <p><b>Methods:</b> The protocol was registered with PROSPERO. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1998 to December 2021. Studies involving patients undergoing congenital cardiac surgery operations performed with robotic assistance were included. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and then full text of eligible studies. A third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was applied to quantify quality assessment for nonrandomized observational studies.</p>\n <p><b>Results:</b> A total of one-hundred twenty-eight publications underwent full-text review, and 66 studies were included. Overwhelmingly, the majority are from single institutions and observational and retrospective studies. The population was mostly adults with only 10.6% (7/66) studies solely reporting pediatric patients. About 50% of the studies were case reports (28/66). Selective reporting of outcomes varied widely across studies. Cumulative mortality rates were 0.3%. The highest incidence of morbidities included pleural effusion (12.3%), reoperation for bleeding (10.7%), atrial fibrillation (10.7%), heart block (9.5%), and peripheral cannulation–related complications (8.6%). The overall quality of the studies was unsatisfactory, with the majority of studies receiving a score of 3 out of 9.</p>\n <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Most publications were case reports or small case series performed in adults and restricted to a few international institutions. To address these clinical challenges, technological improvements and advanced training will be mandatory before wider application to children and complex congenital diagnoses. Unfortunately, the overall quality of studies is poor, with inconsistent outcomes reporting. Improved and standardized reporting will be necessary before an appropriate evaluation of robotics in the treatment of congenital heart disease is feasible.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15367,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/jocs/4692522","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/jocs/4692522","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With the increasing adoption of robotic technology in adult cardiac surgery patients, improved surgeon experience and wider utilization have been reported. However, interpreting trends in robotic congenital surgery is more challenging. By performing a systematic review, the authors aim to evaluate the current literature on robotic congenital operations.

Methods: The protocol was registered with PROSPERO. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1998 to December 2021. Studies involving patients undergoing congenital cardiac surgery operations performed with robotic assistance were included. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and then full text of eligible studies. A third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was applied to quantify quality assessment for nonrandomized observational studies.

Results: A total of one-hundred twenty-eight publications underwent full-text review, and 66 studies were included. Overwhelmingly, the majority are from single institutions and observational and retrospective studies. The population was mostly adults with only 10.6% (7/66) studies solely reporting pediatric patients. About 50% of the studies were case reports (28/66). Selective reporting of outcomes varied widely across studies. Cumulative mortality rates were 0.3%. The highest incidence of morbidities included pleural effusion (12.3%), reoperation for bleeding (10.7%), atrial fibrillation (10.7%), heart block (9.5%), and peripheral cannulation–related complications (8.6%). The overall quality of the studies was unsatisfactory, with the majority of studies receiving a score of 3 out of 9.

Conclusions: Most publications were case reports or small case series performed in adults and restricted to a few international institutions. To address these clinical challenges, technological improvements and advanced training will be mandatory before wider application to children and complex congenital diagnoses. Unfortunately, the overall quality of studies is poor, with inconsistent outcomes reporting. Improved and standardized reporting will be necessary before an appropriate evaluation of robotics in the treatment of congenital heart disease is feasible.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
976
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiac Surgery (JCS) is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to contemporary surgical treatment of cardiac disease. Renown for its detailed "how to" methods, JCS''s well-illustrated, concise technical articles, critical reviews and commentaries are highly valued by dedicated readers worldwide. With Editor-in-Chief Harold Lazar, MD and an internationally prominent editorial board, JCS continues its 20-year history as an important professional resource. Editorial coverage includes biologic support, mechanical cardiac assist and/or replacement and surgical techniques, and features current material on topics such as OPCAB surgery, stented and stentless valves, endovascular stent placement, atrial fibrillation, transplantation, percutaneous valve repair/replacement, left ventricular restoration surgery, immunobiology, and bridges to transplant and recovery. In addition, special sections (Images in Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Regeneration) and historical reviews stimulate reader interest. The journal also routinely publishes proceedings of important international symposia in a timely manner.
期刊最新文献
Homograft Root Replacement Does Not Provide Superior Outcomes in Invasive Aortic Valve Endocarditis Compared With Prosthetic Valve Conduits Corrigendum to “Thoracoscopic AF Ablation in Situs Inversus Dextrocardia With Interrupted Inferior Vena Cava Continuation in Azygos Vein” Robotic Congenital Cardiac Surgery Practice Worldwide: A Systematic Review Alfieri Stitch (Edge To Edge) in Degenerative Mitral Valve Repair: Characteristics and Late Durability in 648 Patients Long-Term Results of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valvuloplasty: Insights From a 12-Year Single-Center Experience
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1