Background: Minimally invasive mitral valve repair has been proven to be a safe alternative to open sternotomy and may be accomplished through classic endoscopic and robotic endoscopic approaches.Outcomes across different minimally invasive techniques have been insufficiently described. We compare early and late clinical outcomes across matched patients undergoing robotic endoscopic and classic endoscopic repair.Methods: From 2011 to 2020, 786 patients underwent minimally invasive mitral surgery, from which we were able to generate 124 matched patients (62 patients in each cohort). Clinical results were then compared between the two matched populations. Survival analysis was used to compare freedom from mortality to 10 years among matched classic endoscopic and robotic endoscopic mitral valve repair cohorts and to calculate freedom from moderate or severe mitral insufficiency at latest follow-up. Histograms of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times were constructed, and mean bypass and crossclamp times were compared between classic endoscopic and robotic endoscopic cohorts.Results: There was no difference in early or late mortality at 10 years in either cohort. Freedom from moderate or severe mitral regurgitation or mitral valve replacement at last echocardiogram was 86.4% vs.73.5% at 10 years, P=0.97. Patients undergoing robotic endoscopic mitral repair had a significantly longer CPB run when compared to the classic endoscopic cohort, with 148 min of CPB in the robotic endoscopic cohort compared to 133 min in the classic endoscopic group, P=0.03. Overall post-operative length of stay was not statistically significant between the robotic endoscopic and classic endoscopic groups, 6.3±0.5 and 6.0±0.3 days, respectively. No patients in either cohort developed renal failure or wound infection. The classic endoscopic group had a slightly higher risk of prolonged ventilation when compared to the robotic endoscopic group, with three classic endoscopic patients remaining intubated >8 hours post-operatively, compared to a single patient in the robotic endoscopic group. There were no unplanned reoperations in either group. Rates of postoperative stroke were comparable between groups (three in the classic endoscopic cohort, and two in the robotic endoscopic cohort).Conclusions: Index mitral valve surgery via a classic endoscopic approach yields similar clinical outcomes when compared to robotic endoscopic surgery. We demonstrate that both classic endoscopic and robotic endoscopic approaches allow repair of degenerative mitral valves with excellent short-and medium-term outcomes in a tertiary referral center.

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Fentanyl is a phenylpiperidine derivative synthetic opioid agonist. As an analgesic fentanyl is 75-125 times more potent than morphine. Sufentanil is a semisynthetic thienyl analogue fentanyl with analgesic potency 5 to 10 times more than that of fentanyl. Recently there has been an interest in using analgesics and local anaesthetics in an attempt to decrease the local anaesthetic dose enabling faster recovery.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> A double blinded randomised study was carried out with 50 patients of ASA grade I and II aged between 20 and 60 years undergoing elective inguinal and below inguinal region surgeries under low dose spinal anaesthesia. Patients received 10 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine with 50 μg of fentanyl added to a total volume of 3 ml  (group F), and with sufentanil 5 μg [diluted with 5% dextrose] and volume made to 3 ml (group S). Postoperative VAS score for pain, duration of motor block and complications postoperatively is noted.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> Prolonged postoperative analgesia was observed in group F (216.7 min) and group S (264.8) which was statistically significant among the groups (p&lt;0.001) is higher in group S and also duration of motor block in group F (130.6) and group S (90.5) which was statistically significant among the groups (p&lt;0.001) which is higher in group F than group S.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When compared to intrathecal bupivacaine-fentanyl combination; intrathecal bupivacaine-sufentanil combination provided prolonged postoperative analgesia with a lesser duration of motor blockade thus allowing early post operative ambulation.</p>

Introduction:In patients with preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing aortic valve replacement, the addition of surgical ablation to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR-SA) is efficacious and a Class I guideline. We hypothesized that this subgroup may benefit from SAVR-SA compared to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) alone. Methods: Medicare beneficiaries with persistent non-valvular AF who underwent SAVR-SA or TAVR alone between 2012 and 2018 were included. Patients with high-risk surgical comorbidities were excluded. Groups were matched using inverse probability weighting. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, transient ischemic attack, permanent pacemaker implantation, bleeding, rehospitalization for atrial arrhythmias, and rehospitalization for heart failure. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional-hazards regression were used to compare outcomes. Outcomes were adjusted for variables with a standardized mean difference greater than 0.1. Results: Of 439,492 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement, 2591 underwent SAVR-SA and 1494 underwent TAVR alone. Weighting resulted in adequately matched groups. Compared to TAVR alone, SAVR-SA was associated with a significant reduction in allcause mortality (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.79), permanent pacemaker implantation (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87), bleeding (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.00), and rehospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.49 (0.36-0.65). There was no difference in the incidence of stroke (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74-1.54), transient ischemic attack (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75-1.47), or rehospitalization for atrial arrhythmia. Conclusion: Select patients with persistent non-valvular AF may benefit from SAVR-SA compared to TAVR alone.

Background: The ultrasound guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block which provides effective analgesia after lower abdominal surgeries including caesarean section. It is a simple and reliable technique. In this prospective, randomized double-blind study, we determined the efficacy of TAP block using 0.25% Bupivacaine and 0.9N Saline with respect to VAS for pain, postoperative Tramadol consumption and post-operative ondansetron usage.Methods: This study was conducted on 100 adult patients of ASA physical status I and II in the   age group of 18 to 40 years undergoing elective lower segment cesarean section under spinal anaesthesia. Study group received TAP block with 0.25% Bupivacaine and control group received 10 ml of 0.9N saline on each side. Patients were analyzed for postoperative pain by pain score (at rest, on movement, on cough) using VAS was recorded at 0, ½, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 hours postoperatively. Need for rescue analgesia was assessed by time to first dose of Tramadol requirement and total dose of Tramadol over 24 hours of postoperative period. Ondansetron (4 mg i.v.) was administered whenever nausea score was more than 2 or the patient vomited. All the data was noted using uniform performs.Results: Patients received TAP block with 0.25% Bupivacaine had better pain scores at first hour of postoperative period during rest, cough and movement which was statistically significant (p<0.0010) in comparison to group B. There was a statistically significant difference (p <0.001) in the requirement of total dose of Tramadol as a rescue analgesia in patients who received transversus abdominis block with 0.25% Bupivacaine (138.77 mg) in comparison with other group(240 mg).The mean time to first request for Tramadol was significantly longer in group A (5.8 hrs)  in comparison to group B (1.93 hrs) with p value <0.001. Patients received TAP block with 0.9N saline needed more dose of Ondansetron, however, the difference was not statistically significant (p >0.001).Conclusions: TAP block using ultrasound provides substantial reduction in Tramadol consumption, time to first dose of rescue tramadol when compared with control group. This study reinforces the recommendation for TAP as a part of multimodal post-operative analgesic regimen.

No abstract