Local Versus General Anesthesia in Nonemergency Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the perioperative clinical outcomes in using local/regional anesthesia (LA/RA) or general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. A comprehensive electronic literature search was undertaken from inception to September 2018, identifying all randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing LA/RA versus GA in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm who underwent endovascular repair. A total of 12,024 patients (n = 1,664 LA/RA, n = 10,360 GA) were analyzed from 12 observational studies included in this analysis. No difference in mean age between LA/RA and GA group was noted (73.8 ± 7.8 y v 72.4 ± 7.6 y, 95% confidence interval 0.85 [-0.08 to 1.79]; p = 0.07). No differences in preoperative rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grades were noted between the 2 groups (p = 0.21, p = 0.85, p = 0.46, and p = 0.67, respectively). Shorter total surgical time in LA/RA patients was reported (135 ± 40 min v 164 ± 43 min; p < 0.00001). Shorter hospital stay was observed in LA/RA patients (3.6 ± 3.3 d v 4.6 ± 5 d; p = 0.002). No difference in cardiac or renal complications was noted between the LA/RA and GA groups postoperatively (2.7% v 2.5%; p = 0.46 and 1.2% v 1.6%; p = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in vascular complications was noted in LA/RA versus GA patients (8.4% v 7.7%; p = 0.44). Thirty-day morality was not different between the 2 cohorts (2% v 1.7%; p = 0.97). Use of LA/RA in selective endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedures provides satisfactory and comparable perioperative outcomes with those of GA, with the advantage of a shorter hospital stay. A large randomized controlled trial or multicenter study is required to confirm the present study's findings.

The Future of Open Heart Surgery in the Era of Robotic and Minimal Surgical Interventions.

It has been over two decades since the very first robotic cardiac surgery was performed. Over the years, there has been an increase in the demand for less invasive cardiac surgical techniques. Developments in technology and engineering have provided an opportunity for robotic surgery to be applied to a variety of cardiac procedures, including coronary revascularisation, mitral valve surgery, atrial fibrillation ablation, and others. In coronary revascularisation, it is becoming more widely used in single vessel, as well as hybrid coronary artery approaches. Currently, several international centres are specialising in a totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass surgery involving multiple vessels. Mitral valve and other intracardiac pathologies such as atrial septal defect and intracardiac tumour are also increasingly being addressed robotically. Even though some studies have shown good results with robot-assisted cardiac surgery, there are still concerns about safety, cost and clinical efficacy. There are also limitations and additional challenges with the management of cardiopulmonary bypass and myocardial protection during robotic surgery. Implementing novel strategies to manage these challenges, together with careful patient selection can go a long way to producing satisfactory results. This review examines the current evidence behind robotic surgery in various aspects of cardiac surgery.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular versus open surgical repair for the traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open repair and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken of the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing open vs endovascular repair. Databases were evaluated to July 2018. Odds ratios (ORs), weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were analyzed. The primary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, and 30-day mortality rates; secondary outcomes were requirement for reintervention and 1-year and five-year mortality rates. RESULTS: A total of 1968 patients were analyzed in 21 articles. TEVAR was performed in 29% (n = 578) and open repair in 71% (n = 1390). TEVAR and open repair did not differ in the mean age of patients (42.1 ± 14 years vs 44.1 ± 14 years; P = .48). There was no difference in duration of intensive care and total hospital stay between TEVAR and open repair groups (12.7 ± 11.1 days vs 12.6 ± 8 days [P = .35] and 27.5 ± 14.6 days vs 25.9 ± 11 days [P = .80], respectively). Similarly, no statistically significant difference in postoperative paraplegia or stroke rate was noted between TEVAR and open repair (1.4% vs 2.3% [OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.59-2.70; P = .54] and 1% vs 0.5% [OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.18-2.18; P = .46]). Lower 30-day and 1-year mortality was noted in TEVAR (7.9% vs 20% [OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.92-4.49; P < .00001] and 8.7% vs 17% [OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 0.99-4.52; P = .05]). There was no difference in 5-year mortality (23% vs 17%; OR, 0.07; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.20; P = .33). However, there was a higher rate of reintervention at 1 year in the endovascular group (0% vs 6%; OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.96; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR carries lower in-hospital mortality and provides satisfactory perioperative outcomes compared with open repair in traumatic ruptured thoracic aorta. It also provides a favorable 1-year survival at the expense of higher reintervention rates.

Aortic Valve Repair: Where Are We Now?

The advent of aortic valve repair alongside the well-established technique of valve replacement changed the landscape of cardiac surgery, as well as the lives of patients suffering from valvular disease. Repair represents a novel option in those unfit for replacement and avoids the burden of lifelong anticoagulation in younger patients. Despite this, the associated risk of persistence of aortic insufficiency, and therefore reoperation, with valvular repair renders clinical decision making between the two techniques difficult. Unlike the burden of evidence supporting mitral valve repair over replacement, the debate surrounding aortic valve surgery continues. This article aims to explore the development of operative techniques underlying aortic valve repair as well as summarising existing research into short- and long-term patient outcomes in both aortic valve repair and replacement.