RESPECT OR RESECT: A SINGLE STRATEGY DOES NOT FIT ALL

Mitral valve (MV) repair for mitral regurgitation (MR) due to posterior leaflet (PL) prolapse is achieved nowadays with a great success rate and a good survival, similar, in certain subgroups. In this paper, Sakaguchi et al describe their results in two groups of patients with PL prolapse. Some patients underwent resection (resection group) and others chordal replacement with/out limited resection (respect group). Results were similar in terms of survival and MR recurrence. Our goal is to eliminate, as much as possible, MR when a patient with degenerative MR is operated on. Reduction of the mitral orifice and consequently an increase of the transmitral gradient is the rule. MV repair for degenerative MR provides great results, but there is not a single surgical technique. A close evaluation of the anatomical findings will allow us to choose the best strategy for the individual patient. An open mind is the most important characteristic that a surgeon should have to repair a prolapsing PL without residual regurgitation and dangerous gradients.

Benefits of robotically-assisted surgery for complex mitral valve repair

OBJECTIVES To determine whether robotic mitral valve repair can be applied to more complex lesions compared with minimally invasive direct mitral valve repair through a right thoracotomy. METHODS We enrolled 335 patients over a 9-year period; 95% of the robotic surgeries were performed after experience performing direct mitral valve repair. RESULTS The mean age in the robotic versus thoracotomy repair groups was 61 ± 14 vs 55 ± 11 years, respectively (P < 0.001); 97% vs 100% of the patients, respectively, had degenerative aetiologies. Repair complexity was simple in 106 (63%) vs 140 (84%), complex in 34 (20%) vs 20 (12%) and most complex in 29 (17%) vs 6 (4%) patients undergoing robotic versus thoracotomy repair, respectively. The average complexity score with robotic repair was significantly higher versus thoracotomy repair (P < 0.001). The robotic group underwent more chordal replacement using polytetrafluoroethylene and less resections. All patients underwent ring annuloplasty. Cross-clamp time did not differ between the groups, and no strokes or deaths occurred. More patients undergoing robotic repair underwent concomitant procedures versus the thoracotomy group (30% vs 14%, respectively; P < 0.001). The overall repair rate was 100%, with no early mortality or strokes in either group. Postoperative mean residual mitral regurgitation was 0.3 in both groups, and the mean pressure gradient through the mitral valve was 2.4 vs 2.7 mmHg (robotic versus thoracotomy repair, respectively; P = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS Robotic surgery can be applied to repair more complex mitral lesions, with excellent early outcomes.

Loop neochord versus leaflet resection techniques for minimally invasive mitral valve repair: long-term results

OBJECTIVES Non-leaflet resection techniques including loop chordal replacement are being used with increasing frequency, but the long-term results of these techniques are still unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term results of loop neochord replacement with leaflet resection techniques in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve (MV) repair for MV prolapse. METHODS Between 1999 and 2014, 2134 consecutive MV prolapse patients underwent minimally invasive MV repair with isolated loop (n = 1751; 82.1%) or resection techniques (n = 383, 17.9%) at our institution. Follow-up data were available for 86% of patients with a mean follow-up time of 6.1 ± 4.3 years. RESULTS The 30-day mortality was 0.8% for all patients (loop: 0.7%, resection: 1.6%; P = 0.09). Leaflet resection was associated with more moderate or more mitral regurgitation on predischarge echocardiography (P = 0.003). The 1-, 5- and 10-year survival rates were 98 ± 1%, 95 ± 1% and 86 ± 2% for the loop technique versus 97 ± 1%, 92 ± 1% and 81 ± 2% for resection patients, respectively (P = 0.003). Significant predictors for late mortality were MV repair technique (P = 0.004), left ventricular ejection fraction (P < 0.001), age (P < 0.001) and myocardial infarction (P < 0.001). Freedom from MV reoperation at 1, 5 and 10 years was 98 ± 1%, 97 ± 1%, 97 ± 1% and 97 ± 1%, 97 ± 1%, 96 ± 1% for patients operated on with the loop technique and leaflet resection (P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS In our patient cohort, MV repair with loop chordal replacement is associated with less early recurrent mitral regurgitation and very good long-term results when compared to classical leaflet resection techniques for MV prolapse and is therefore an excellent option for such patients.