The role of ministernotomy in aortic valve surgery—A prospective randomized study

• DOI: 10.1111/jocs.14053
• Publication Date: 2019-04-24T12:19:49Z
• Authors: Petar M. Vukovic; Predrag Milojevic; Ivan Stojanovic; Slobodan Micovic; Igor Zivkovic; Miodrag Peric; Miroslav Milicic; Petar Milacic; Milan Milojevic; Milovan Bojic
• Keywords: Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Male; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Time Factors; Operative Time; Recovery of Function; Length of Stay; Middle Aged; Constriction; Sternotomy; 3. Good health; 03 medical and health sciences; Cross-Sectional Studies; Treatment Outcome; 0302 clinical medicine; Aortic Valve; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Female; Prospective Studies; Aged; Follow-Up Studies

The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare the early and midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) through upper ministernotomy with conventional AVR through median sternotomy.One hundred patients undergoing elective AVR were randomized into two groups: the M group (upper ministernotomy group, n = 50) and the C group (conventional sternotomy group, n = 50). The operative data, major adverse outcomes, and postoperative variables were compared between the two groups of patients. A cross-sectional follow-up was performed 24.9 ± 5.8 months after surgery.The aortic cross-clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time were significantly longer in the M group. Similar incidences of major cardiac, neurologic and renal complications were recorded in both groups. Two patients (4%) in the C group developed wound infections. The length of ICU stay was similar in both groups. The patients in the M group had a shorter hospital stay compared with the patients in the C group (7.6 ± 2 days vs 9.3 ± 4.8 days; P = 0.022). Follow-up revealed that the time period needed to reach full recovery was significantly shorter in the ministernotomy group (1.7 ± 1.2 months vs 2.8 ± 1.6 months; P = 0.001). Morbidity and mortality data did not differ between the two groups.There was no difference in the major outcomes between the patients who underwent upper ministernotomy and those who underwent full sternotomy. The benefits of the minimally invasive approach were the shorter hospital stay and significantly faster recovery of patients after discharge from the hospital.