Transcatheter closure vs totally endoscopic robotic surgery for atrial septal defect closure: A single‐center experience

Background Transcatheter closure is the preferred method for atrial septal defect (ASD) closure. Robotic surgery has become the least invasive technique for ASD closure. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the outcomes in patients who underwent ASD closure with transcatheter or robotic surgery techniques. Methods A total of 462 patients underwent totally endoscopic robotic (n = 217) or transcatheter ASD closure (n = 245). Demographic data, perioperative data, and outcomes were compared. Results The mean age was lower in the robotic surgery group than the transcatheter group (31.4 ± 11.8 vs 39.4 ± 13.2 years; P = .001). Ventilation time, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and hospital stay was significantly lower in the transcatheter group. The postoperative new‐onset neurological event was seen in one (0.5%) patient in robotic surgery, and four (1.6%) patients in the transcatheter closure group. New‐onset atrial fibrillation was found to be higher in transcatheter closure (two vs seven patients; P = .133) group. Surgical conversion to a larger incision occurred in two patients (1%) in robotic surgery, while two patients (0.5%) underwent emergency median sternotomy due to device embolization to the main pulmonary artery. There was no mortality in both groups. During follow‐up, one patient (0.5%) who underwent robotic surgery was reoperated, and two patients (0.8%) who underwent transcatheter procedure required surgical intervention due to device migration and severe residual shunting (P = .635). Conclusion Both transcatheter and robotic surgery approaches had excellent outcomes but transcatheter closure had shorter hospital and ICU stays. Robotic surgery provides a similar complication risk that can be comparable to the transcatheter approach as well as patient comfort and cosmetic advantage over the other surgical techniques.