Original articleCardiovascularMinimally Invasive Versus Standard Approach Aortic Valve Replacement: A Study in 506 Patients
Section snippets
Material and Methods
This is a retrospective, nonrandomized review of a single-center series of AVR using either a partial or complete sternotomy approach. The Institutional Review Board approved this study. Individual consent was waived as data collection was obtained from patient records and the departmental database. A total of 506 patients underwent an aortic valve replacement as their first cardiac operation between October 1997 and November 2004. Of these, 232 were operated through a partial upper J
Results
The types of valves implanted were similar for the two groups of patients (Table 4). Intraoperative characteristics of the two groups of patients are detailed in Table 4. Aortic cross-clamp and ECC times were shorter in minimal access AVR patients, and statistically significant differences were noted for these variables. Except for 1 patient in the conventional group, patients in both groups were successfully weaned from ECC without the need for mechanical circulatory support. None of the
Comment
Over the last decade, several studies have demonstrated excellent postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing different minimally invasive approaches for cardiac surgical procedures [2]. After various studies on the feasibility and possible advantages of minimally invasive AVR, we have adopted the reversed J sternotomy approach for minimal access aortic valve surgery in the second half of 1997. It is well known that most of the incision-related complications of new techniques occur in the
References (29)
- et al.
Minimally invasive approach to aortic valve operations
Ann Thorac Surg
(1996) Minimal-access “J” or “j” sternotomy for valvular, aortic and coronary operations or re-operations
Ann Thorac Surg
(1997)Mini-T sternotomy for cardiac operations
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
(1997)Reversed C sternotomy for aortic valve replacement
Ann Thorac Surg
(1999)- et al.
Minimal access aortic valve replacementeffects on morbidity and resource utilization
Ann Thorac Surg
(2002) - et al.
Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operationsa prospective study in 120 patients
Ann Thorac Surg
(1999) Minimally invasive valve surgery versus the conventional approach
Ann Thorac Surg
(1998)- et al.
Video-assisted minimally invasive mitral valve surgery
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
(1997) - et al.
Single access for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement
Ann Thorac Surg
(1997) - et al.
Atrial fibrillation after cardiac operationrisks, mechanism, and treatment
Ann Thorac Surg
(2000)
Usefulness of atrial fibrillation as a predictor of stroke after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting
Am J Cardiol
Determinant of pulmonary function in patients undergoing coronary bypass operation
Ann Thorac Surg
Minimal-access aortic and valvular operations including the J/j incision
Ann Thorac Surg
Do patients want minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
Cited by (160)
Enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery under CPB or off-pump 2021
2022, Anesthesie et ReanimationGuidelines on enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery under cardiopulmonary bypass or off-pump
2022, Anaesthesia Critical Care and Pain MedicineMinimally Invasive vs Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement With Rapid-Deployment Bioprostheses
2021, Annals of Thoracic SurgeryBicuspid aortic valve repair—current techniques, outcomes, challenges, and future perspectives
2023, Frontiers in Cardiovascular MedicineEditorial: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery: state of the art and current challenges
2023, Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine