We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Value of Robotically Assisted Surgery for Mitral Valve Disease

Tomislav Mihaljevic, MD1,2; Marijan Koprivanac, MD1; Marta Kelava, MD1; Avi Goodman, BS3; Craig Jarrett, MD, MBA1; Sarah J. Williams, MS4; A. Marc Gillinov, MD1; Gurjyot Bajwa, MD1; Stephanie L. Mick, MD1; Johannes Bonatti, MD1; Eugene H. Blackstone, MD1,4
[+] Author Affiliations
1Heart and Vascular Institute, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
2Heart and Vascular Institute, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
3Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
4Research Institute, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland, Ohio
JAMA Surg. 2014;149(7):679-686. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5680.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  The value of robotically assisted surgery for mitral valve disease is questioned because the high cost of care associated with robotic technology may outweigh its clinical benefits.

Objective  To investigate conditions under which benefits of robotically assisted surgery mitigate high technology costs.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Clinical cohort study at a large multispecialty academic medical center comparing costs of robotically assisted surgery with 3 contemporaneous conventional surgical approaches for degenerative mitral valve disease. From January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2010, a total of 1290 patients with a mean (SD) age of 57 (11) years underwent mitral valve repair for regurgitation from posterior leaflet prolapse. Robotically assisted surgery was performed in 473 patients, complete sternotomy in 227, partial sternotomy in 349, and anterolateral thoracotomy in 241. Comparisons were based on intent to treat, with 3 propensity-matched groups formed based on demographics, symptoms, cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities, valve pathophysiologic disorders, and echocardiographic measurements: robotic vs sternotomy (198 pairs) vs partial sternotomy (293 pairs) vs thoracotomy (224 pairs).

Interventions  Mitral valve repair.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Cost of care (expressed as robotic capital investment, maintenance of equipment, and direct technical hospital costs) and benefit of care (based on differences in recovery time).

Results  Cost of care (median [15th and 85th percentiles]) for robotically assisted surgery exceeded that of alternative approaches by 26.8% (–5.3% and 67.9%), 32.1% (–6.1% and 69.6%), and 20.7% (–2.4% and 48.4%) for complete sternotomy, partial sternotomy, and anterolateral thoracotomy, respectively. Higher operative costs were partially offset by lower postoperative costs and earlier return to work: a median (15th and 85th percentiles) of 35 (19 and 63) days for robotically assisted surgery, 49 (21 and 109) days for complete sternotomy, 56 (30 and 119) days for partial sternotomy, and 42 (18 and 90) days for anterolateral thoracotomy. Resulting net differences (median [15th and 85th percentiles]) in the cost of robotic surgery vs the 3 alternatives were 15.6% (–14.7% and 55.1%), 15.7% (–19.4% and 51.2%), and 14.8% (–7.4% and 43.6%), respectively. Beyond a volume threshold of 55 to 100 robotically assisted operations per year, distribution of the cost of this technology broadly overlapped those of conventional approaches.

Conclusions and Relevance  In exchange for higher procedural costs, robotically assisted surgery for mitral valve repair offers the clinical benefit of least-invasive surgery, lowest postoperative cost, and fastest return to work. The value of robotically assisted surgery that is similar to that of conventional approaches can be realized only in high-volume centers.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?


Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
CONSORT Diagram Showing Patient Groups by Approach

Ninety-one percent of patients matched (87.2% of complete sternotomy, 83.9% of partial sternotomy, 92.9% of anterolateral thoracotomy, and 96.8% of robotic groups). MV indicates mitral valve.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Forest Plot of Cost Ratios

All cost ratios are presented as robotic to nonrobotic. Each symbol denotes median cost ratio, with lines extending from the 15th to 85th percentiles. Note that the horizontal axis is logarithmic.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 3.
Case Volume–Cost Relationship

The horizontal line represents a cost ratio of 1 (meaning costs are equal), and the solid curved line represents a net cost ratio, including amortization for robotic capital investment and maintenance, direct technical hospital costs, and benefit of care translated into income difference, depending on the annual number of patients for whom robotic procedures were performed. Dashed lines enclose the 15th through 85th percentiles of the ratio. A, Robotically assisted surgery (ROB) vs complete sternotomy (CST). B, ROB vs partial sternotomy (PST). C, ROB vs anterolateral thoracotomy (ANT).

Graphic Jump Location




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

2 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles