Narrative Review Comparing the Effectiveness of Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Perioperative and Mid-Term Results


Authors : Usha Topalkatti; Krushika Devanaboyina; Dr. Rajanikant Kumar; Nathnael Abera Woldehana; Nikhil Deep Kolanu; Sumeja Catic; Dr. Thirumurugan Sivakumaar; Narla Sai Jahnu Sree Reddy; Ismail Ahamed; Kanchi Lavanya; Thirumeni Aravazhi; Ananth Vallabh Guddeti; Ameer M Shazley; Etelaviu Khezhie

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 2 - February

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/4msmm43x

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2fd7ctw8

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14987769

Abstract : Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) stands as a cornerstone in managing coronary artery disease (CAD), with robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass (RCAB) emerging as a promising alternative to traditional CABG methods. This narrative review evaluates perioperative and mid-term outcomes of RCAB compared to conventional CABG, incorporating diverse study designs and endpoints. Ten studies, encompassing prospective and retrospective analyses, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies, were included after a rigorous selection process. Findings reveal potential advantages of RCAB, including reduced perioperative morbidity, improved pain management, and enhanced postoperative recovery trajectories. Long-term survival rates and freedom from major adverse cardiac events also appear promising with RCAB. However, limitations such as study heterogeneity, small sample sizes, variable follow-up periods, and lack of standardization in surgical techniques and perioperative care protocols are noted.

Keywords : Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting, Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass, Conventional CABG, Perioperative Outcomes, Mid-Term Outcomes, Surgical Innovation.

References :

  1. Hirsch FR, Scagliotti GV, Mulshine JL, et al: Lung cancer: Current therapies and new targeted treatments. Lancet 389:299–311, 2017
  2. Cao C, Indraratna P, Doyle M, et al. A systematic review on robotic coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 5:530-543, 2016
  3. Moscarelli M, Harling L, Ashrafian H, et al. Challenges facing totally endoscopic robotic coronary artery bypass grafting. Int J Med Robot 11:18-29, 2015
  4. Guyatt GH, Oxman A, Vist G, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924-926, 2008
  5. Jegaden O, Wautot F, Sassard T, et al. Is there an optimal minimally invasive technique for left anterior descending coronary artery bypass? J Cardiothorac Surg; 6:37, 2011
  6. Whellan DJ, McCarey MM, Taylor BS, et al. Trends in roboticassisted coronary artery bypass grafts: a study of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery database, 2006 to 2012. Ann Thorac Surg 102:140-146, 2016
  7. Cavallaro P, Rhee AJ, Chiang Y, et al. In-hospital mortality and morbidity after robotic coronary artery surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 29:27-31, 2015
  8. Gong W, Cai J, Wang Z, et al. Robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting improves short-term outcomes compared with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Dis 8:459-468, 2016
  9. Bachinsky WB, Abdelsalam M, Boga G, et al. Comparative study of same sitting hybrid coronary artery revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass in multivessel coronary artery disease. J Interv Cardiol 25:460-8, 2012
  10. Shahian DM, O’Brien SM, Filardo G, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1 - coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 88: S2-22, 2009
  11. Serruys PW, Morice M, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 360:961-72, 2009
  12. Bayramoglu Z, Caynak B, Ezelsoy M, et al. Angiographic evaluation of graft patency in robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery: 8year follow-up. Int J Med Robot 10:121-127, 2014
  13. Cheng N, Gao C, Yang M, et al. Analysis of the learning curve for beating heart, totally endoscopic, coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 148:1832-1836, 2014
  14. Bonatti J, Schachner T, Bonaros N etal. Effectiveness and safety of total endoscopic left internal mammary artery bypass graft to the left anterior descending artery. Am J Cardiol 104:1684-1688, 2009
  15. Chauhan S, Sukesan S. Anesthesia for robotic cardiac surgery: an amalgam of technology and skill. Ann Card Anaesth 13:169-175, 2010
  16. Bernstein WK, Walker A. Anesthetic issues for robotic cardiac surgery. Ann Card Anaesth 18:58-68, 2015
  17. Wang G, Gao C. Robotic cardiac surgery: an anaesthetic challenge. Postgrad Med J 90:467-474, 2015
  18. Kofler M, Stastny L, Johannes Reinstadler S, Dumfarth J, Kilo J, Friedrich G, Schachner T, Grimm M, Bonatti J, Bonaros N. Robotic versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: direct comparison of long-term clinical outcome. Innovations 12(4):239-246, 2017
  19. Gofus J, Cerny S, Shahin Y, Sorm Z, Vobornik M, Smolak P, Sethi A, Marcinov S, Karalko M, Chek J, Harrer J. Robot-assisted vs. conventional MIDCAB: A propensity-matched analysis. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine 9:943076, 2022
  20. Leyvi G, Vivek K, Sehgal S, et al. A comparison of inflammatory responses between robotically enhanced coronary artery bypass grafting and conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: implications for hybrid revascularization. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 32: 251-258, 2018
  21. Su CS, Chen YW, Shen CH et al. Clinical outcomes of left main coronary artery disease patients undergoing three different revascularization approaches. Medicine (Baltimore) 97: e9778, 2018
  22. Leyvi G, Schechter CB, Sehgal S, et al. Comparison of index hospitalization costs between robotic CABG and conventional CABG: implications for hybrid coronary revascularization. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 30:12-8, 2016
  23. Raad WN, Forest S, Follis M, et al. The impact of robotic versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting on in-hospital narcotic use: a propensity-matched analysis. Innovations (Phila) 11:112-5, 2016
  24. Ezelsoy M, Caynak B, Bayram M, et al. The comparison between minimally invasive coronary bypass grafting surgery and conventional bypass grafting surgery in proximal LAD lesion. Heart Surg Forum 18: E042-6, 2015
  25. Zaouter C, Imbault J, Labrousse L, et al. Association of robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass graft surgery associated with a preliminary cardiac enhanced recovery after surgery program: a retrospective analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 29:1489-1497, 2015
  26. Poston RS, Tran R, Collins M, et al. Comparison of economic and patient outcomes with minimally invasive versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting techniques. Ann Surg 248: 638-646, 2008
  27. Bucerius J, Metz S, Walther T, et al. Endoscopic internal thoracic artery dissection leads to significant reduction of pain after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 73:1180-1184, 200

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) stands as a cornerstone in managing coronary artery disease (CAD), with robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass (RCAB) emerging as a promising alternative to traditional CABG methods. This narrative review evaluates perioperative and mid-term outcomes of RCAB compared to conventional CABG, incorporating diverse study designs and endpoints. Ten studies, encompassing prospective and retrospective analyses, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies, were included after a rigorous selection process. Findings reveal potential advantages of RCAB, including reduced perioperative morbidity, improved pain management, and enhanced postoperative recovery trajectories. Long-term survival rates and freedom from major adverse cardiac events also appear promising with RCAB. However, limitations such as study heterogeneity, small sample sizes, variable follow-up periods, and lack of standardization in surgical techniques and perioperative care protocols are noted.

Keywords : Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting, Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass, Conventional CABG, Perioperative Outcomes, Mid-Term Outcomes, Surgical Innovation.

Video Explanation for Published paper

Never miss an update from Papermashup

Get notified about the latest tutorials and downloads.

Subscribe by Email

Get alerts directly into your inbox after each post and stay updated.
Subscribe
OR

Subscribe by RSS

Add our RSS to your feedreader to get regular updates from us.
Subscribe