Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Craig R Smith.
IMPLICATIONS: We describe the anesthetic management of two patients who underwent successful mitral valve repair with use of a robot-assisted cardiac surgical technique. We describe the robot used, as well as the surgical procedure, and highlight aspects of the anesthetic management, in particular the need for one-lung ventilation and the utility of transesophageal echocardiography.
BACKGROUND: Robotic technology can be used to facilitate the performance of a variety of cardiac surgical procedures, including internal mammary artery mobilization, atrial septal defect repair, mitral valve repair, and coronary artery bypass grafting. This report describes t h e use of robotic technology for resection of mediastinal masses. METHODS: Two patients underwent mediastinal mass resection performed using the Da Vinci robotic surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Mountain View, CA, USA). The first patient had a 3 x 4-cm mass located in the left superiorposterior mediastinum, abutting the left subclavian artery. The second patient had a 2.7 x 1.9-cm mass located in the left chest wall. RESULTS: Both mediastinal masses were successfully excised using a totally endoscopic robotic approach with three 1-cm incisions. Neither case was converted to a thoracotomy or sternotomy. There were no postoperative complications. Both patients were discharged on postoperative day 2. CONCLUSIONS: Resection of a mediastinal mass ca n be performed safely and effectively using robotic technology. By minimizing surgical trauma, this approach is likely to yield a hastened postoperative recovery and improved quality of life.
Acute rejection of renal allografts is mediated by infiltrating alloreactive T cells. The goals of this study were to correlate T cell proliferation with rejection and to determine whether T cell proliferation in the absence of rejection would predict future rejection episodes. Toward this, kidney biopsies (n=100) were cultured in the presence of interleukin-2. Cultures were examined at 4, 24, and 48 hr for T cell proliferation. A strong correlation was observed between T cell proliferation at any time point and rejection. There was not a significant correlation between T cell proliferation in biopsies with no rejection and the occurrence of a rejection episode within 2 months. However, T cell proliferation after 4 hr was a better predictor of the occurrence of rejection within 2 months compared with observations after 24 and 48 hr. Therefore, a subgroup of patients with unremarkable biopsies but T cell proliferation may be at risk for rejection and warrant closer observation and possible tailoring of immunosuppression.
BACKGROUND: The development of minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been characterized by the performance of increasingly complex operations through progressively smaller incisions. Computer (robotic) enhancement has emerged as a potential facilitator of these procedures, initially by providing enhanced endoscopic camera control and, more recently, by allowing the manipulation of surgical instruments through limited thoracic incisions. This report describes the next step in this progression, namely the performance of an atrial septal defect (ASD) repair entirely through thoracoscopic port incisions. This represents the first U.S. application of robotic technology for totally endoscopic open-heart surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 33-year-old woman with a secundum atrial septal defect underwent totally endoscopic repair through four port incisions by means of the Da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Mountain View, CA) robotic surgical system. Cardiopulmonary bypass was achieved peripherally (femoral Estech endoaortic balloon cannula; femoral and right internal jugular venous Bio-medicus cannulae). The myocardium was protected with antegrade cold blood cardioplegia delivered through the distal port of the arterial cannula. After port insertion, the entire operation, including pericardiotomy, bicaval occlusion, atriotomy, atrial septopexy, and atrial closure, was performed by computer-aided control of a camera and two instrument arms manipulated by a surgeon seated 15 feet away. The fourth port was used for suction and suture passage by the patient-side assistant. The aortic cross-clamp time was 43 minutes, and the postoperative transesophageal echocardiogram demonstrated normal ventricular function and the absence of interatrial shunting. The patient was extubated on the night of surgery, was ambulatory within 15 hours, and was discharged on the morning of postoperative day 3, 63 hours after the procedure. At 30-day follow-up, the patient was well and without complaints, and transthoracic echocardiogram confirmed the continued absence of interatrial shunting. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-aided robotic surgical technology can be used to perform open-heart procedures with a totally endoscopic approach. The benefits of this approach may include decreased perioperative pain, decreased recovery times, and improved cosmesis and patient acceptance. Clinical trials currently in progress will demonstrate whether this technology will be of reproducible value in the management of patients with intracardiac disease on a larger scale.
BACKGROUND: While potential benefits of robotic technology include decreased morbidity and improved recovery, some have suggested a prohibitively high cost. This study was undertaken to compare actual hospital costs of robotically assisted cardiac procedures with conventional techniques. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of clinical and financial data of 20 patients who underwent atrial septal defect (ASD) closure and 20 patients who underwent mitral valve repair (MVr) using either robotic techniques or a conventional approach with a sternotomy. Total hospital cost (actual resource consumption) was subdivided into operative and postoperative costs. RESULTS: Robotic technology did not significantly increase total hospital cost for ASD closure or MVr (p = 0.518 and p = 0.539). However, when including the initial capital investment for the robot through amortization of institutional costs, total hospital cost was increased by $3,773 for robotic ASD closure and $3,444 for robotic MVr (p = 0.021 and p = 0.004). The major driver of cost for robotic cases (operating room time) decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic technology did not significantly increase hospital cost. While the absolute cost for robotic surgery was higher than conventional techniques after taking into account the institutional cost of the robot, the major driver of cost for robotic procedures will likely continue to decrease, as the surgical team becomes increasingly familiar with robotic technology. Furthermore, other benefits, such as improvement in postoperative quality of life and more expeditious return to work may make a robotic approach cost-effective. Thus, it is possible that the benefits of robotic surgery may justify investment in this technology.