Background and Aim: Attempting to place an aortic cross-clamp may complicate surgery and postoperative outcomes in patients who have mediastinal adhesions or in those with extensive aortic calcification. Although right-sided cardiac surgery via thoracotomy is not a new technique in these patients, robotic-assisted intracardiac repair without cross-clamping was not reported in a large group of patients previously. In this study, the safety of robotic-assisted cardiac surgery without aortic cross-clamping was examined. Methods: From January 2010 to March 2020, 304 patients underwent roboticassisted cardiac surgery in our center and in 25 of these patients (8.2%) with a mean age of 65.5 ± 20 years myocardial protection was succeeded with moderate hypothermic ventricular fibrillatory arrest. Severe pericardial adhesions or existence of highly calcified ascending aorta were the indications for fibrillatory arrest during robotic assistant surgery. Results: Most patients were in New York Heart Association Class ≥II (88.0%) and the mean logistic Euroscore value was 18.5 ± 22.3. The type of operations were mitral/tricuspid valve repair/replacement, cryoablation, atrial septal defect closure, and pericardiectomy. Cardiopulmonary bypass times were 141.5 ± 47 (minimum 77-maximum 252) min. There was no case of conversion to open thoracotomy or sternotomy. Hemiparesis was observed in one patient. Two patients with 78.2 and 81.9 Euroscore values had mesenteric ischemia and multiorgan failure, respectively, and died at postoperative period. Conclusions: Robotic-assisted cardiac surgery without cross-clamping may provide reasonable outcomes in patients with severe aortic calcification or mediastinal adhesions undergoing intracardiac repair. These acceptable outcomes may encourage surgeons to perform this approach in appropriate group of patients.

Background: Many cardiac surgeons receive training for sternotomy-based cardiac surgical operations in residency programs and only a few education programs offer training specifically in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. In this report, we aimed to search and analyze the learning curve for robotic-assisted mitral valve (MV) repair in cardiac surgeons. Method: Between January 2010 and July 2019, 60 robotic-assisted isolated MV repair surgeries were performed with DaVinci Robotic Systems in our center. Different kinds of surgical techniques were used. The assessment of the learning curve was based on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and transthoracic aortic clamp (CC) times. Result: There were 23 (38.3%) men and 37 (61.7%) women with a mean age of 48.3 years. The lesions of the MV were posterior leaflet prolapsus (n = 42, 70.0%), anterior leaflet prolapsus (n = 8, 13.3%), Barlow disease (n = 3, 5%), and annular dilatation (n = 7, 11.6%). The patients underwent notochordal implantation (n = 27, 45%), quadrangular or triangular resection (n = 23, 38.3%), isolated ring annuloplasty (n = 7, 11.7%), resection, and leaflet reduction (n = 2, 3.3%) or edge to edge repair (n = 1, 1.7%). The maturation of the learning curve appeared to be about 30 cases. The statistical analysis showed that the mean CPB and CC times for the first 30 cases were greater compared with the 30 after learning curve (155.3 vs. 118.9 min [p = .00], 102.3 vs. 80 min [p = .00], respectively). There was no case of conversion to open surgery. No perioperative mortality was observed. Conclusion: The maturation of the learning curve for robotic-assisted MV repair appeared to be about 30 cases in our group of patients. This study had encouraging results for surgeons who desire to start a robotic mitral surgery program.

Background The feasibility, safety and advantages of minimally invasive or robotic repair of atrial septal defect (ASD) in adults were reported previously. However, there is limited data for the application of these systems in paediatric patients. Although current robotic systems still have large instruments for surgical repair in children, some appropriate patients may benefit from this technology. Method A 6‐year‐old child with ASD underwent robotic assistant repair via Da‐Vinci Robotic Systems. Venous cannulation was achieved by internal jugular and femoral veins (10F–14F) and arterial cannulation was performed via femoral artery under transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance (10F). A 3 cm incision was made in the right fourth intercostal space, used for working and the camera port in the same time. The ports were placed considering not to damage the potential developing breast tissue. After the port implantation (8F) and cardiac arrest, the ASD repair was completed with primary closure technique. Result The perioperative period was uneventful and the patient was discharged from hospital 5 days after surgery. Conclusion ASD closure with robotic assistant was achieved in a large enough sized paediatric patient. With the development of thinner and shorter robotic arms, it will be possible to use robotic assistance more common during the repair of congenital heart diseases.