Clinical efficacy of minimally invasive robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease
- VernacularTitle:达芬奇机器人辅助下微创冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗多支冠状动脉病变的疗效分析
- Author:
Jiahui LI
1
;
Chenyi CUI
1
;
Haoqi LI
1
;
Jizhong XUAN
1
;
Zhao LI
1
;
Sheng WANG
1
;
Junjie SUN
1
;
Zhaoyun CHENG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Central China Fuwai Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, P. R. China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Coronary heart disease;
Da Vinci robot;
minimally invasive surgery;
off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting;
multivessel coronary artery disease;
clinical efficacy;
perioperative complications
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2026;33(05):728-733
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting through a small incision in the left intercostal space in the treatment of multivessel coronary disease. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting through a small incision in the left intercostal space at Central China Fuwai Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 1, 2023 to October 15, 2024. Patients were divided into a robotic group and a minimally invasive group based on whether the surgery was assisted by the Da Vinci robot. Results A total of 81 patients were included, with 57 in the minimally invasive group, including 41 males and 16 females, with a median age of 65.0 (57.5, 69.5) years; and 24 in the robotic group, including 17 males and 7 females, with a median age of 61.0 (56.0, 69.0) years. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline data between the two groups (P>0.05). The robotic group had less intraoperative bleeding [300 (200, 438) mL vs. 500 (375, 600) mL, P=0.006], shorter postoperative mechanical ventilation time [15.0 (13.3, 23.5) h vs. 22.0 (15.5, 39.5) h, P=0.037], and lower incidence of postoperative pain [8 (33.3%) vs. 33 (57.9%), P=0.043]. The hospitalization cost in the robotic group was higher than that in the minimally invasive group [130491 (123298, 135691) yuan vs. 123892 (115543, 133449) yuan, P=0.023]. There was no statistical difference in postoperative laboratory indicators between the two groups (P>0.05). There was also no statistical difference in the duration of surgery, postoperative 24 h drainage volume, ICU stay time, postoperative hospital stay or incidences of perioperative compications including pleural effusion, transfusion, new-onset atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, non-union of incision, major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events, and reoperation between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with the minimally invasive group, the robotic group shows satisfactory efficacy and can effectively reduce postoperative pain and intraoperative bleeding, and shorten postoperative mechanical ventilation time.
