Fifty Percent Reduction in Narcotic Use After Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Using Liposomal Bupivacaine

Objective

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery via a right minithoracotomy (RMT) is a common approach to different valve pathologies, tumor resection, and atrial septal defect (ASD) closure. We studied intraoperative field block using liposomal bupivacaine (LB) in these operations.

Methods

Consecutive 171 minimally invasive RMTs (fourth intercostal space) were studied, and patients in cardiogenic or septic shock, intravenous drug abuse, and those re-explored were excluded ( n = 12). An early cohort was treated with standard postoperative analgesia while another underwent intraoperative field block with LB immediately after incision. We compared postoperative pain level, narcotic utilization (morphine milligram equivalent), and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay.

Results

The procedures included 48 isolated mitral valve replacements (MVR); 2 MVR with other procedures; 93 mitral valve repairs (MVRr); 9 MVRr with other procedures; 4 isolated tricuspid valve repairs; 2 myxoma resections; 1 ASD closure. There were 13 patients in the non-LB group and 146 patients in the LB group. Use of LB decreased mean postoperative narcotic utilization by 50% ( P = 0.003). The LB group had lower pain levels on postoperative day 1 ( P = 0.039), which continued through postoperative day 5 ( P = 0.030). We found no difference in ICU or hospital length of stay between groups. There were no complications from LB field block.

Conclusions

LB field block decreases postoperative pain and narcotic utilization after cardiac surgery via a RMT, but it does not reduce length of stay. The technique is safe and should be considered in all patients undergoing RMT cardiac surgery.

Robotically assisted minimally invasive mitral valve surgery

Increased recognition of advantages, over the last decade, of minimizing surgical trauma by operating through smaller incisions and its direct impact on reduced postoperative pain, quicker recovery, improved cosmesis and earlier return to work has spurred the minimally invasive cardiac surgical revolution. This transition began in the early 1990s with advancements in endoscopic instruments, video & fiberoptic technology and improvements in perfusion systems for establishing cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) via peripheral cannulation. Society of Thoracic Surgeons data documents that 20% of all mitral valve surgeries are performed using minimally invasive techniques, with half being robotically assisted. This article reviews the current status of robotically assisted mitral valve surgery, its advantages and technical modifications for optimizing clinical outcomes.

Robotic and minimally invasive cardiac surgery

The transition of mitral valve surgery away from the traditional sternotomy approach toward more minimally invasive strategies continues to evolve. The use of telemanipulative robotic arms with near 3-dimensional valve visualization has allowed for near complete endoscopic robotic-assisted mitral valve surgery, providing increased patient satisfaction and cosmesis. Studies have shown rapid recovery times without sacrificing perioperative safety or the durability of surgical repair. Although a steep learning curve exists as well as high fixed and disposable costs, continued technological development fueled by increasing patient demand may allow for further expansion in the use of robotic-assisted minimal invasive surgery.

Anesthetic considerations during minimally invasive mitral valve surgery

Advances in instruments and visualization tools as well as circulatory systems for cardiopulmonary bypass during the late 1990s have stimulated widespread adoption of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS). Today, MIMVS is the standard approach for many surgeons and institutions. There are multiple benefits of MIMVS. Patient satisfaction and improved cosmesis are important. Additionally, studies have consistently shown faster recovery times and less associated pain with MIMVS. Statistically significant improvement in bleeding, transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, and time to resumption of normal activities with MIMVS has also been shown when comparing MIMVS with conventional mitral surgery. Most important, these benefits have been achieved without sacrificing perioperative safety or durability of surgical repair. Although a steep learning curve still exists given the high level of case complexity, continued development fueled by increasing patient demand may allow for even further expansion in the use of minimal invasive techniques.