Anyone seen research on this? More act needed with Robotic replacement?

[ryen0]

Misinformation would be a good way to put it Ryan. I think it's important that people know that a surgeon will always steer them to what his capabilities are. They will also go that extra mile to tell the patient that their way is best. There seems to be alot of sheep out there.

As far as the surgeons being merely technicians as someone said, my surgeon spent a good bit of his career doing heart transplants. I think he can find his way around the heart and is familiar with the surrounding chest area.

That is true. Cardiologists can be bad about this too. If i had listened to the cardiologist who discovered my severe leakage, i could very well have a mechanical valve and a huge chest scar right now. I guess the take away is that you need to take charge of your own healthcare decisions and do the research yourself. I'm sure i don't have to tell you how amazing Dr. Murphy and his team are. They made one of the hardest times of my life a whole lot easier.

 

[ryen0]

For anyone interested, I received confirmation from my surgeon's office that you aren't on any more post-op anticoagulants than you are with traditional surgery. At least with them.

 

[ejc61]

I checked my records and with my wife. My post-op anticoagulant was an 81 mg aspirin which I stilll take today. I had 2 beta blockers one of which I was weened off by week 8, and the other by week 12; and percocet for pain which I tried to decrease after about 2-3 weeks. I did have pleural effusion after about week 8 but it went away after about 4 weeks or week 12.

 

[paige]

As I am having robotic repair in less than two weeks, I resurrected this thread to assist others who are contemplating robotic repair and clarifying any misinformation about robotic repair that may be out there. For anyone interested, Cleveland Clinic did a study on robotic repair versus conventional for mitral valve prolapse. It was published in The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, January 2011 (Robotic repair of posterior mitral valve prolapse vesus conventional approaches: Potential realized, Tomislav Mihaljevic, M.D. et, al).

The study compared the robotic approach to complete sternotomy, to partial sternotomy, and to mini-antercolateral thorocotomy. The robotic group had the longest operative times and cardiopulmonary bypass times. Quality of MV repair was similar, with more than 95% of patients having no or mild residual MR on postoperative TEE. Reoperation for postoperative bleeding and use of blood product use were similar among groups. Pain on day four was similar in all groups. The lowest prevalance of new post op atrial fib and pleural effusion was observed in the robotic group. The robotic group had the shortest post op hospital stay. The study involved 759 patients. 114 complete sternotomies, 270 partial sternotomy, 114 mini-anterolaterla thorocotomyand 261 robotic.

 

[Bryan B]

I think any technology that can help a doctor / surgeon perform his job better and allow a patient to heal faster and/or be in less pain is a good thing. Unfortunately neither of my surgeries could be done using the Da Vinci robot (ross procedure and ascending aorta replacement) or I would be all for less pain and faster recovery.

My Ross Procedure turned out not to be successful, but I don't regret having it and never try to discourage people from getting this procedure. I do tell them to make sure they get a very experienced surgeon that does a lot of RP's, especially if they have a BAV. Like a lot of other procedures, the RP is still evolving and they are learning more about it and how to perfect the procedure as time passes.