{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05263157894736842, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04105263157894737, 'mean_word_length': 4.903726708074534, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative Analysis of Perioperative and Mid-Term Results of TECAB and MIDCAB for Revascularization of Anterior Wall

Objective Totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting through minithoracotomy are currently the two minimally invasive surgical techniques of left ventricular anterior wall revascularization. We aimed to compare both techniques in terms of perioperative and mid-term results. Methods Arrested heart TECAB was carried out in 204 patients with a median (range) age of 60 (53–76) years and a median (range) EuroSCORE I of 2 (0–3). Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass was performed in 60 patients with a median (range) age of 66 (54–75) years and a median (range) EuroSCORE I of 2 (1–5). Both techniques were used for single or sequential internal mammary artery grafts to the anterior wall. Operative times, conversion rates, and surgical complications as well as mid-term results were compared between the groups after a median follow-up of 36 months. Results No perioperative deaths were noted. Rates of myocardial infarction (TECAB: 1.5% vs MIDCAB: 0%, P = 0.463) and stroke (TECAB: 1.5% vs MIDCAB: 0%, P = 0.454) were not significantly different between the groups. Total operative times were longer in the TECAB compared with the MIDCAB group [292 (250–345) minutes in TECAB versus 201 (173–289) minutes in MIDCAB (P < 0.001)]. Intensive care unit stay and total length of stay were similar between the groups. There was no difference in mid-term survival (TECAB: 1.5% vs MIDCAB: 1.7%, P = 0.298) and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (TECAB: 12.4% vs MIDCAB: 5.1%, P = 0.358). Conclusions Robotically assisted arrested heart TECAB and robotic MIDCAB perform equally in terms of perioperative results and mid-term follow-up in this single-center patient cohort.