About this Research Topic
Minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery (MICTS) has progressively gained popularity over the years. The main objectives of this growth have been the decreased postoperative pain and reduced surgical trauma. Initially, concerns regarding the limited exposure, particularly in highly complex operations, the learning-curve’s associated prolonged operative times, and patient safety were raised. However, the development of specific surgical tools and devices, and the refinement of the surgical skills have led to the wide spread of MICTS, with comparable outcomes to open surgery. As a matter of fact, literature is now thriving with MICTS long-term outcomes, suggesting that major cardiothoracic operations can be performed through an array of minimally invasive approaches with equal safety, durability, and outcomes to open surgery.
Advances in the surgical field increased the number of treatment options that can now be offered to patients. However, not every patient can undergo MICTS. This has raised the need to identify the best patient for a particular treatment option through prognostic factors, especially in the current personalized medicine era. Mini-incisions, thoracoscopy, or robotic-assisted surgery cannot be offered without distinction.
What is more, can these interventions maximize outcome benefits without compromising costs? The aim is not to choose the least expensive option but to determine a balance between cost-effective means of an intervention that also meets acceptable outcome standards. To date, the cost-effectiveness of MICTS, particularly robotic techniques, is still debatable.
In this Research Topic we welcome studies that focus on surgical outcomes, prognostic factors, and cost-effectiveness of MICTS (mini-thoracotomy, mini-sternotomy, thoracoscopy, robotic-assisted surgery). This includes, but is not limited to:
- Valve surgery
- Aortic surgery
- Revascularization surgery
- Atrial fibrillation surgery (ablation/left atrial appendage closure)
- Lung resection
- Esophagectomy
- Thymectomy
- Pleurectomy / Decortication
Original studies and reviews (including meta-analyses) are particularly welcomed.
Advances in the surgical field increased the number of treatment options that can now be offered to patients. However, not every patient can undergo MICTS. This has raised the need to identify the best patient for a particular treatment option through prognostic factors, especially in the current personalized medicine era. Mini-incisions, thoracoscopy, or robotic-assisted surgery cannot be offered without distinction.
What is more, can these interventions maximize outcome benefits without compromising costs? The aim is not to choose the least expensive option but to determine a balance between cost-effective means of an intervention that also meets acceptable outcome standards. To date, the cost-effectiveness of MICTS, particularly robotic techniques, is still debatable.
In this Research Topic we welcome studies that focus on surgical outcomes, prognostic factors, and cost-effectiveness of MICTS (mini-thoracotomy, mini-sternotomy, thoracoscopy, robotic-assisted surgery). This includes, but is not limited to:
- Valve surgery
- Aortic surgery
- Revascularization surgery
- Atrial fibrillation surgery (ablation/left atrial appendage closure)
- Lung resection
- Esophagectomy
- Thymectomy
- Pleurectomy / Decortication
Original studies and reviews (including meta-analyses) are particularly welcomed.
Keywords: Minimally Invasive Surgery, Thoracoscopy, Robotic-Assisted, Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cost-Effectiveness, Prognostic Factors, Survival
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
