HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Clifton C. Reade L. Wiley Nifong Alan P. Kypson Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reade, C. C. Articles by Kypson, A. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reade, C. C. Articles by Kypson, A. P. Related Collections Cardiac - physiology Minimally invasive surgery Valve disease

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;130:114-119
© 2005 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Evolving Technology

Acute effects of suction retraction on atrial hemodynamics and histology

^a Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
^b Department of Pathology, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

Presented at the Owen H. Wangensteen Surgical Forum Program at the 89th Annual Clinical Congress Meeting of the American College of Surgeons, Chicago, Ill, Oct 22, 2003.

Received for publication June 16, 2004; revisions received November 11, 2004; accepted for publication November 23, 2004.

^_* Address for reprints: Clifton C. Reade, MD, Department of Surgery, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC 27834 (Email: readec{at}mail.ecu.edu).

OBJECTIVES: In minimally invasive and robotic mitral valve surgery, a blade retractor is used to elevate the left atrial roof, which often distorts tissue and impairs visualization. We tested the hemodynamic and histologic changes of intra-atrial suction, using a new suction retractor that may improve stabilization and visualization.

METHODS: Swine were divided into 3 equal (n = 4) groups: blade retractor, suction retractor, and arrested heart control. Left atrial ultrasonic crystals were used to record ejection fractions. After cardioplegic arrest, the atrium was opened and sampled for preretractor histology. Retractors remained in place for 1 hour, followed by postretractor histologic sampling. Controls were crossclamped for an equivalent time and postarrest histologic data obtained. Animals were weaned from bypass, data were collected for 4 hours, and postsacrifice atrial histologic samples were obtained.

RESULTS: The main effect due to treatment was not statistically significant (P = .52) between the 3 groups, with the 4-hour average ejection fraction for blade retractor, suction retractor, and control being statistically equivalent at 33.3% ± 8.3, 35.3% ± 12.1, and 40.8% ± 9.9 (mean ± standard deviation), respectively. Histology showed equivalent amounts of myocyte fragmentation, interstitial edema, eosinophilia, and wavy fibers between blade retraction and suction retraction, while the latter showed slightly increased amounts of hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS: Atrial endocardial suction retraction appears to be safe with no acute changes in the left atrial ejection fraction or significant acute histologic differences, compared to blade retraction. Furthermore, intra-atrial suction may be applicable to procedures other than minimally invasive and robotic mitral valve repair for providing improved stabilization.