Comparative analysis of robotically-assisted versus conventional sternotomy approach in left atrial myxoma resection: A single-center retrospective observational study

Background Minimally invasive surgery has emerged as a favorable alternative to conventional surgery for various cardiac conditions. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and follow-up results of the robotic approach versus the sternotomy approach for left atrial myxoma (LAM) resection. Method We retrospectively analyzed the perioperative outcomes and follow-up results of 94 patients who underwent left atrial myxoma resection using either the sternotomy approach (n = 64) or the robotic approach (n = 30) at our center between January 2017 and April 2023. Multiple linear regressions were employed to examine the actual impact of the surgical approach on perioperative outcomes while controlling for potential confounding factors. Results There were no in-hospital deaths or follow-up deaths in the robotic group. Univariate analyses revealed that robotic LAM resection had a longer cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (99.93 ± 22.30 vs. 76.28 ± 24.92, P < 0.001), longer aortic clamping time (57.80 ± 20.27 vs. 47.89 ± 18.10, P = 0.019), reduced postoperative drainage (P < 0.001), shorter mechanical ventilation time (P = 0.005), shorter postoperative bed-stay time (P < 0.001), shorter postoperative hospitalization time (P = 0.040), and higher hospital costs (P = 0.001) compared to the sternotomy group. After adjusting for baseline characteristics in a multiple regression model, a longer CPB time (B = 28.328; CI, 18.609–38.047; P < 0.001), longer aortic clamping time (B = 11.856; CI, 4.069–19.644; P = 0.003), reduced postoperative drainage (B = −200.224; CI, −254.962– –145.486; P < 0.001), shorter mechanical ventilation time (B = −3.429; CI, −6.562– –0.295; P = 0.032), shorter postoperative bed-stay time (B = −2.230; CI, −3.267– –1.193; P < 0.001), shorter postoperative hospitalization time (B = −1.998; CI, −3.747– –0.250; P = 0.026), and higher hospital costs (B = 2096.866, P = 0.002) were found in the robotic group. Furthermore, the robotic group exhibited a faster return to exercise compared to the sternotomy group (Log-Rank χ2 = 34.527, P < 0.001). Conclusion Both the robotic and sternotomy approaches are viable and safe options for LAM resection. However, despite the higher costs, longer CPB time, and longer aortic clamping time associated with robotic LAM resection, this technique was correlated with reduced postoperative drainage and faster postoperative recovery compared to the sternotomy technique.