Next article Search Articles Instructions for authors  Access Statistics | Citation Manager  
REVIEW ARTICLE  

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4569    
    Printed62    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded671    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

Anesthetic challenges in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: Are we moving in a right direction?


1 Department of Cardiac Anesthesia, AIIMS, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Anesthesiology, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Correspondence Address:
Ajay Kumar Jha
Department of Anesthesiology, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.185539

Rights and Permissions

Year : 2016  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 489-497

 

SEARCH
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles

  Article in PDF (325 KB)
Email article
Print Article
Add to My List
Continuously growing patient's demand, technological innovation, and surgical expertise have led to the widespread popularity of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS). Patient's demand is being driven by less surgical trauma, reduced scarring, lesser pain, substantially lesser duration of hospital stay, and early return to normal activity. In addition, MICS decreases the incidence of postoperative respiratory dysfunction, chronic pain, chest instability, deep sternal wound infection, bleeding, and atrial fibrillation. Widespread media coverage, competition among surgeons and hospitals, and their associated brand values have further contributed in raising awareness among patients. In this process, surgeons and anesthesiologist have moved from the comfort of traditional wide incision surgeries to more challenging and intensively skilled MICS. A wide variety of cardiac lesions, techniques, and approaches coupled with a significant learning curve have made the anesthesiologist's job a challenging one. Anesthesiologists facilitate in providing optimal surgical settings beginning with lung isolation, confirmation of diagnosis, cannula placement, and cardioplegia delivery. However, the concern remains and it mainly relates to patient safety, prolonged intraoperative duration, and reduced surgical exposure leading to suboptimal treatment. The risk of neurological complications, aortic injury, phrenic nerve palsy, and peripheral vascular thromboembolism can be reduced by proper preoperative evaluation and patient selection. Nevertheless, advancement in surgical instruments, perfusion practices, increasing use of transesophageal echocardiography, and accumulating experience of surgeons and anesthesiologist have somewhat helped in amelioration of these valid concerns. A patient-centric approach and clear communication between the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and perfusionist are vital for the success of MICS.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
 

 

 

 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 
 
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
  *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 
 REVIEW ARTICLE
 




1 Department of Cardiac Anesthesia, AIIMS, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Anesthesiology, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Correspondence Address:
Ajay Kumar Jha
Department of Anesthesiology, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-9784.185539

Rights and Permissions

Continuously growing patient's demand, technological innovation, and surgical expertise have led to the widespread popularity of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS). Patient's demand is being driven by less surgical trauma, reduced scarring, lesser pain, substantially lesser duration of hospital stay, and early return to normal activity. In addition, MICS decreases the incidence of postoperative respiratory dysfunction, chronic pain, chest instability, deep sternal wound infection, bleeding, and atrial fibrillation. Widespread media coverage, competition among surgeons and hospitals, and their associated brand values have further contributed in raising awareness among patients. In this process, surgeons and anesthesiologist have moved from the comfort of traditional wide incision surgeries to more challenging and intensively skilled MICS. A wide variety of cardiac lesions, techniques, and approaches coupled with a significant learning curve have made the anesthesiologist's job a challenging one. Anesthesiologists facilitate in providing optimal surgical settings beginning with lung isolation, confirmation of diagnosis, cannula placement, and cardioplegia delivery. However, the concern remains and it mainly relates to patient safety, prolonged intraoperative duration, and reduced surgical exposure leading to suboptimal treatment. The risk of neurological complications, aortic injury, phrenic nerve palsy, and peripheral vascular thromboembolism can be reduced by proper preoperative evaluation and patient selection. Nevertheless, advancement in surgical instruments, perfusion practices, increasing use of transesophageal echocardiography, and accumulating experience of surgeons and anesthesiologist have somewhat helped in amelioration of these valid concerns. A patient-centric approach and clear communication between the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and perfusionist are vital for the success of MICS.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article