Robot-Assisted Aortic Valve Replacement Using a Novel Sutureless Bovine Pericardial Prosthesis Proof of Concept as an Alternative to Percutaneous Implantation

Author(s):  
Rakesh M. Suri ◽  
Harold M. Burkhart ◽  
Hartzell V. Schaff

Objective Percutaneous aortic valve implantation within native valve calcium has progressed to clinical use despite the absence of data proving equivalence to complete surgical excision and prosthetic valve replacement. A novel self-expanding sutureless bovine pericardial prosthesis (Sorin Perceval) derived from a proven stented valve has been successfully used in humans recently through an open transaortic approach. We sought to develop a minimally invasive technique for native aortic valve excision and sutureless prosthetic aortic valve replacement using robot assistance. Methods The da Vinci S-HD system was used to open and suspend the pericardium anterior to the phrenic nerve in cadavers. A transthoracic cross-clamp was placed across the midascending aorta, following which a transverse aortotomy was made. The native aortic valve cusps were excised, and annular calcium was removed with robotic instruments. After placement of three guide sutures, the Perceval self-expanding pericardial prosthesis mounted on a flexible delivery system was inserted through a working port and lowered into the aortic annulus. Results Successful implantation of all valves was possible using a 3-cm right second intercostal space working port, along with two additional 1-cm instrument ports. A standard transverse aortotomy was sufficient for examination/debridement of the native aortic valve cusps, sizing of the annulus, and deployment of the nitinol-stented, bovine pericardial prosthesis. Delivery, seating, and stability of the device were easily confirmed above and below the aortic valve annulus using the robotic camera. Conclusions Complete excision of diseased native aortic valve cusps with robot assistance facilitates accurate and reproducible aortic valve replacement using a novel self-expanding sutureless version of a proven bovine pericardial prosthesis. This approach is comparable to the current surgical gold standard and is ready for clinical use as an alternative to percutaneous aortic valve implantation.

2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Wolf ◽  
R Sodian ◽  
P Boekstegers ◽  
M Primaychenko ◽  
G Juchem ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 1398-1403 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Walther ◽  
G. Schuler ◽  
M. A. Borger ◽  
J. Kempfert ◽  
J. Seeburger ◽  
...  

BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Saerom Youn ◽  
Shannon Avery Wong ◽  
Caitlin Chrystoja ◽  
George Tomlinson ◽  
Harindra C. Wijeysundera ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Paucity of RCTs of non-drug technologies lead to widespread dependence on non-randomized studies. Relationship between nonrandomized study design attributes and biased estimates of treatment effects are poorly understood. Our purpose was to estimate the bias associated with specific nonrandomized study attributes among studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis. Results We included 6 RCTs and 87 nonrandomized studies. Surgical risk scores were similar for comparison groups in RCTs, but were higher for patients having transcatheter aortic valve implantation in nonrandomized studies. Nonrandomized studies underestimated the benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with RCTs. For example, nonrandomized studies without adjustment estimated a higher risk of postoperative mortality for transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (OR 1.43 [95% CI 1.26 to 1.62]) than high quality RCTs (OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.11). Nonrandomized studies using propensity score matching (OR 1.13 [95% CI 0.85 to 1.52]) and regression modelling (OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.57 to 0.81]) to adjust results estimated treatment effects closer to high quality RCTs. Nonrandomized studies describing losses to follow-up estimated treatment effects that were significantly closer to high quality RCT than nonrandomized studies that did not. Conclusion Studies with different attributes produce different estimates of treatment effects. Study design attributes related to the completeness of follow-up may explain biased treatment estimates in nonrandomized studies, as in the case of aortic valve replacement where high-risk patients were preferentially selected for the newer (transcatheter) procedure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document