First in Human Totally Endoscopic Perceval Valve Implantation

Not All SAVR Are Created Equal: All the Approaches Available for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) is still one of the pillars of cardiac surgery practice, and its role is evolving into a more complex operation. The competition with structural valve therapies and the urgent demand for less invasive solutions have unleashed surgeons' creativity in adapting to these new challenges. All the possible ways to surgically replace the aortic valve are analyzed in this review. Surgical techniques, advantages and disadvantages, and key differences are listed, helping surgeons navigate the available options. Sternotomy SAVR is the benchmark, but that is becoming obsolete and, in some cases, no longer performed for teaching purposes. Mini sternotomy is the easiest way to achieve minimal invasiveness in all anatomic situations, while right anterior thoracotomy is an elegant solution mastered by fewer surgeons. Endoscopic and robotic-assisted techniques are shaping the future of SAVR, yet they still lack wide adoption. The choice of approach is mainly dictated by the anatomic features of the patient and the surgeon's skills. A flow diagram to overcome the learning curve and advance toward more complex surgery is provided here. Mastering as many techniques as possible is paramount when offering a patient-tailored approach and performing a safe and less invasive operation.

Safety and efficacy of two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Pure aortic valve disease is common and has been treated with sternotomy aortic valve replacement for decades. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been widely used in atrioventricular valve lesions, but totally thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement has rarely been reported.

METHOD

The profiles of 9 patients who were diagnosed with severe aortic valve diseases and treated with two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement between February 2021 and February 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical data, including baseline characteristics, operative data, postoperative complications, and short-term outcomes, were reported.

RESULTS

All nine patients successfully underwent two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement, with a cardiopulmonary bypass time of 137.56 ± 27.99 min and an aortic cross-clamp time of 95.33 ± 17.96 min. Seven (77.78%) patients underwent mechanical valve replacement, and two (22.22%) patients underwent bioprosthetic valve replacement. Two (22.22%) patients underwent a concomitant aortic root enlargement procedure. There were no intraoperative or postoperative deaths. The incidence of procedural complications was 0%, while the results of ventilation time, intensive care unit stay length, blood transfusion, chest tube drainage, and kidney function were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

Two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement is a safe and effective surgical treatment option for carefully selected patients with pure aortic valve diseases.

Totally endoscopic non-robotic excision of aortic valve fibroelastoma: a case report

Background

Papillary fibroelastomas (PFEs) are a rare subtype of benign primary cardiac tumours, which are most commonly found on the aortic valve. Although median sternotomy is still used frequently there has been different attempts to remove the aortic valve PFEs minimally invasively using robotic and Mini sternotomy approach.

Case presentation

We report herein a case of totally endoscopic non robotic removal of PFE of aortic valve.

Conclusions

The encouraging intra and post-operative outcomes and fast recovery using totally endoscopic approach for removal of PFE shows the potential benefits of this technique.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-02040-0.

Early results of totally endoscopic robotic aortic valve replacement: analysis of 4 cases

Objective

To evaluate the role of totally endoscopic robotic aortic valve replacement in cardiac surgery.

Methods

Four cases of totally robotic aortic valve replacement (AVR) were conducted from December 2016 to July 2018. All operations were completed with the Da Vinci robot Si™ system (intuitive Surgical, Inc. Sunnyvale, C.A, USA). Patients were male, with a mean age of 42.8 ± 6.2 years (range 32–49).

Results

AVR was completed with the Da Vinci Si™ system (intuitive Surgical, Inc. Sunnyvale, CA, USA). There was no mortality and no procedure-related morbidity. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass and mean cross-clamp time was 252 ± 13.6 min and 178.8 ± 17.1 min, respectively. The mean ICU time was 78.8 ± 27.1 h, and the mean hospital stay was 15 ± 3.5 d. During a mean follow-up of 3 years and 6 months, the patients returned to normal function, and no heart murmur was found. Compared with the operation, the body image score of the four patients increased after the operation, and the hospital anxiety and depression scale scores decreased, indicating that the patient's condition had been alleviated to a certain extent.

Conclusion

Totally endoscopic robotic AVR is a feasible and viable choice for patients but requires further improvement for broader use.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01899-3.

Totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement via an anterolateral approach using a standard prosthesis

OBJECTIVES

Totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement (AVR) is still a challenging operation, and only a few series reports exist in the literature. The purposes of this study were to establish a method for endoscopic AVR and evaluate its initial results.

METHODS

A total of 47 patients (median age 76 years, 17 men) underwent endoscopic AVR. The main wound was created in the right anterolateral 4th intercostal space through a 4-cm skin incision. No rib spreader was used. A 3-dimensional endoscope was inserted at the midaxillary line. A 5.5-mm trocar was inserted in the 3rd intercostal space, thus creating a 3-port setting similar to that used for endoscopic mitral valve surgery. A standard prosthesis was used, and the sutures were tied using a knot pusher. Results were compared with those of 157 patients who underwent right transaxillary AVR with direct vision plus endoscopic assist.

RESULTS

Patient backgrounds did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. No deaths occurred in the entire series. There was no conversion to thoracotomy or sternotomy in the endoscopic AVR group. The complication rate did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. The total operating time was significantly shorter in endoscopic AVR (188-206 min); the cardiopulmonary bypass time (130-128 min) and the cross-clamp time (90-95 min) did not differ significantly (median, endoscopic AVR, right transaxillary AVR). Two patients underwent endoscopic double-valve (aortic and mitral) surgery under the same conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic AVR was possible through 3 ports created in the right anterolateral chest, similar to the procedure for endoscopic mitral valve surgery. By adopting a common approach for both the aortic and the mitral valve operations, endoscopic double-valve surgery can be performed seamlessly.

Early Clinical Experiences of Robotic Assisted Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis with Sutureless Aortic Valve

Robotic assisted aortic valve surgery is still challenging and debatable. We retrospectively reviewed our cases of robotic assisted aortic valve replacement utilizing sutureless aortic valve with following surgical technique: 3 ports, 1 for endoscope and 2 for the robotic arms were inserted in the right chest and da Vinci Si robotic system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was adapted to these ports. Cardiopulmonary bypass was initiated through peripheral cannulations. A vent cannula was placed through the right superior pulmonary vein and a cardioplegia cannula in the ascending aorta. After cardioplegic arrest following aortic cross-clamp, the aortic valve was exposed through a clam shell aortotomy. Valvectomy along with decalcification was performed. Next using 3 guiding sutures the Perceval S valve (LivaNova, London, UK) was parachuted down and deployed. After confirming valve position, the aortotomy was closed. There were no major complications during the procedures and no conversion to sternotomy. Exposure of aortic valve was of high quality. Valvectomy required assistance with long scissors by the bedside surgeon for excision of the severely calcified valve cusps and effective decalcification of annulus. Postoperative convalescence was uncomplicated except for postoperative atrial fibrillation in 1 patient. Robotic assistance in aortic valve procedure enabled excellent exposure of the aortic valve and improved manipulation and suturing of the aortic annulus and aorta. There needs to be improvement of instrumentation for valve debridement and removal of calcium from the annulus. In addition, the sutureless valve technology contributes to the feasibility and the efficacy of this procedure.

Snugger method - The Oldenburg modification of perceval implantation technique

We present a modified implantation technique of the Perceval^® sutureless aortic valve (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) that involves the usage of snuggers for the guiding sutures during valve deployment. Both limbs of each guiding suture are pulled through an elastic tube, which is fixed with a Pean clamp, which tightens the sutures and fixes the prosthesis to the aortic annulus during valve deployment. This method proved safe and useful in over 120 cases. Valve implantation was facilitated and the need for manipulation by the assistant or the nurse was eliminated.

The Perceval Sutureless Aortic Valve: Review of Outcomes, Complications, and Future Direction

Surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented prosthesis has been the standard of care procedure for aortic stenosis. The Perceval (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) is a sutureless aortic valve bioprosthesis currently implanted in more than 20,000 patients. The purpose of this article was to review the literature available after 9 years of clinical experience of the Perceval aortic valve. PubMED, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. A meta-analysis of summary statistics from individual studies was conducted. A total of 333 studies were identified and 84 studies were included. Thirty-day mortality and 5-year survival ranged from 0% to 4.9% and 71.3% to 85.5%, respectively. Compared with stented prosthesis, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times (minutes) with Perceval (38.6 vs 63.3 and 61.4 vs 84.9, P < 0.00001, respectively). Compared with transcatheter aortic valve implantation, pooled analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction with Perceval in paravalvular leakage (1.26% vs 14.31%) and early mortality (2.3% vs 6.9%). Favorable hemodynamics, acceptable valve durability, and ease of implantation in minimally invasive cases were reported as benefits. A trend toward increased rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and low postoperative platelet count were identified. Special use and off-label procedures described included bicuspid aortic valves, valve-in-valve for homograft and stentless prosthesis failure, concomitant valvular procedures, porcelain aorta, and endocarditis. The Perceval valve has shown safe clinical and hemodynamic outcomes. Outcomes support its continued usage and potential expansion.