Robotically assisted coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background It remains uncertain as to whether robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery (RACBS) is superior to non‐robotic procedures. Methods Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. Two review authors independently screened citations, assessed trial quality and perfo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery 2015-06, Vol.11 (2), p.150-158
Main Authors: Buehler, Anna M., Ferri, Cleusa, Flato, Uri A. P., Fernandes, Jefferson G.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Arteries
Bypasses
Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
Coronary Artery Bypass - adverse effects
Coronary Artery Bypass - methods
Coronary Artery Bypass - statistics & numerical data
coronary artery disease
Coronary Artery Disease - surgery
Humans
Inclusions
Length of Stay
Literature reviews
Medical
meta-analysis
Operative Time
Postoperative Complications - etiology
Prospective Studies
Quality assessment
Risk
Robotic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects
Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods
Robotic Surgical Procedures - statistics & numerical data
robotic-assisted or robotically assisted surgery
Selection Bias
systematic review
Telesurgery
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background It remains uncertain as to whether robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery (RACBS) is superior to non‐robotic procedures. Methods Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. Two review authors independently screened citations, assessed trial quality and performed data extraction. Results Three trials met the inclusion criteria. None was randomized. Compared with non‐robotic approaches, RACBS was associated with longer surgical times, shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays, higher extubation rates and lower odds for atrial fibrillation as well as myocardial infarction. There were no differences for the odds of stroke and mortality between the interventions. Conclusions Although robotic‐assisted coronary bypass appears to be promising, the study designs were not adequate and may have a high risk of selection bias. There is a need for randomized trials to corroborate the findings and to determine the long‐term benefits of RACBS compared with traditional surgical approaches. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN:1478-5951
1478-596X
DOI:10.1002/rcs.1611