L. David Hillis, MD, FACC, Chair†; Peter K. Smith, MD, FACC, Vice Chair*†; Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA*‡; John A. Bittl, MD, FACC§; Charles R. Bridges, MD, SCD, FACC, FAHA*†; John G. Byrne, MD, FACC†; Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, FACC†; Verdi J. DiSesa, MD, FACC†; Loren F. Hiratzka, MD, FACC, FAHA†; Adolph M. Hutter, Jr, MD, MACC, FAHA†; Michael E. Jessen, MD, FACC*†; Ellen C. Keeley, MD, MS†; Stephen J. Lahey, MD†; Richard A. Lange, MD, FACC, FAHA†§; Martin J. London, MD ; Michael J. Mack, MD, FACC*¶; Manesh R. Patel, MD, FACC†; John D. Puskas, MD, FACC*†; Joseph F. Sabik, MD, FACC*#; Ola Selnes, PhD†; David M. Shahian, MD, FACC, FAHA**; Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, FACC*†; Michael D. Winniford, MD, FACC†

2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

https://www.medpagetoday.com/upload/2011/11/8/j.jacc.2011.08.009v1.pdf

2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

“Robotic surgery” originated as an imprecise term, but it has been widely used by both the medical and lay press and is now generally accepted by the medical community. The term refers to surgical technology that places a computer-assisted electromechanical device in the path between the surgeon and the patient. A more scientifically accurate term for current devices would be “remote telepresence manipulators” because available technology does not generally function without the explicit and direct control of a human operator. For the purposes of the document, we define robotic surgery as a surgical procedure or technology that adds a computer technology–enhanced device to the interaction between a surgeon and a patient during a surgical operation and assumes some degree of control heretofore completely reserved for the surgeon. For example, in laparoscopic surgery, the surgeon directly controls and manipulates tissue, albeit at some distance from the patient and through a fulcrum point in the abdominal wall. This differs from the use of current robotic devices, whereby the surgeon sits at a console, typically in the operating room but outside the sterile field, directing and controlling the movements of one or more robotic arms. Although the surgeon still maintains control over the operation, the control is indirect and effected from an increased distance.

This definition of robotic surgery encompasses micromanipulators, remotely controlled endoscopes, and console-manipulator devices. The key elements are enhancements of the surgeon’s abilities—be they vision, tissue manipulation, or tissue sensing—and alteration of the traditional direct local contact between surgeon and patient.

A consensus document on robotic surgery

WRITING COMMITTEE MEMBERS*L. David Hillis, MD, FACC, Chair†; Peter K. Smith, MD, FACC, Vice Chair*†;Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA*‡; John A. Bittl, MD, FACC§;Charles R. Bridges, MD, SCD, FACC, FAHA*†; John G. Byrne, MD, FACC†;Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, FACC†; Verdi J. DiSesa, MD, FACC†;Loren F. Hiratzka, MD, FACC, FAHA†; Adolph M. Hutter, Jr, MD, MACC, FAHA†;Michael E. Jessen, MD, FACC*†; Ellen C. Keeley, MD, MS†; Stephen J. Lahey, MD†;Richard A. Lange, MD, FACC, FAHA†§; Martin J. London, MD ;Michael J. Mack, MD, FACC*¶; Manesh R. Patel, MD, FACC†; John D. Puskas, MD, FACC*†;Joseph F. Sabik, MD, FACC*#; Ola Selnes, PhD†; David M. Shahian, MD, FACC, FAHA**;Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, FACC*†; Michael D. Winniford, MD, FACC†ACCF/AHA TASK FORCE MEMBERSAlice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair; Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect;Nancy Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA; Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA;Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC; Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC;Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA; Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA;Frederick G. Kushner, MD, FACC, FAHA; E. Magnus Ohman, MD, FACC;William Stevenson, MD, FACC, FAHA; Clyde W. Yancy, MD, FACC, FAHA

/pdf/accf-aha-practice-guideline-2011-accf-aha-guideline-for-1m7l232szv.pdf

ACCF/AHA Practice Guideline 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery has emerged as a safe alternative to standard cardiac surgery. In its earlier phase, minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) required the adherence to a number of absolute and relative contraindications. The technique continues to evolve, and in addition to multi-vessel revascularization, bilaterally internal thoracic artery take down is currently feasible to allow for multi-arterial grafting. Evidence is emerging that minimally invasive CABG maintains equivocal safety profile to full sternotomy CABG, while providing superior morbidity profile and postoperative recovery. Further randomized controlled trials involving the comparison between minimally invasive CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention or conventional CABG would widen the applicability and utilization of the procedure. This chapter will review the literature that has been published over the past decade about minimally invasive CABG and the technical aspects of the procedure.

Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

https://www.annalsthoracicsurgery.org/article/S0003-4975(05)01968-5/pdf

David Ligon

Papers

Results of the Prospective Multicenter Trial of Robotically Assisted Totally Endoscopic Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting