Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management01:25

Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management

Aortic regurgitation (AR) is when the aortic valve does not close or seal properly, leading to backward blood circulation from the aorta into the left ventricle during diastole. Common causes of AR include rheumatic heart disease, congenital valve defects, and aortic root dilation. Managing AR requires a multifaceted approach to alleviate symptoms, preserve left ventricular function, and address the underlying cause of the regurgitation. Patients with symptomatic AR or significant left...
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management01:26

Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management

Mitral stenosis, a condition marked by the narrowing of the mitral valve, necessitates an integrated approach for effective management. This approach includes preventative measures, medical therapy, and surgical interventions to reduce symptoms and prevent complications.PreventionPrevention of mitral stenosis primarily focuses on reducing the incidence of bacterial infections, particularly streptococcal infections, which can lead to rheumatic fever and subsequent valvular damage. Timely...
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management01:22

Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management

IntroductionA range of clinical features characterizes Mitral Valve Prolapse (MVP), but it is important to note that many individuals with MVP are asymptomatic and may remain so throughout their lives. For those who do exhibit symptoms, the following are the key clinical features:Palpitations: This is a common symptom where individuals feel an irregular or rapid heartbeat. Palpitations in MVP are often due to arrhythmias such as premature ventricular contractions or supraventricular tachycardia.
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care01:26

Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care

Aneurysm management involves either conservative medical therapy or surgical intervention, depending on the size and symptoms of the aneurysm. Conservative management is generally reserved for smaller, asymptomatic aneurysms, while larger or symptomatic aneurysms often necessitate surgical repair.Conservative Medical TherapyFor small, asymptomatic aneurysms, particularly abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) less than 5.5 centimeters in diameter, conservative medical therapy is recommended. This...
Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction01:15

Aortic Regurgitation I: Introduction

IntroductionAortic regurgitation is characterized by the backward flow of blood from the aorta into the left ventricle during diastole and arises from the improper closure of the aortic valve. This condition results in left ventricular volume overload and can stem from both acute and chronic etiologies, each contributing uniquely to the disease's progression and symptomatology.Acute and Chronic CausesAcute aortic regurgitation often results from events that suddenly impair the integrity of the...
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management01:25

Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is characterized by retrograde blood circulation from the left ventricle into the left atrium due to inadequate mitral valve closure. The severity of the condition, symptoms, and underlying cause determine treatment strategies.Monitoring and Pharmacological TreatmentPatients with mild to moderate MR typically do not need immediate intervention but regular monitoring to assess progression and guide treatment. Patients with mild MR should have an echocardiogram every 3-5...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Identifying quality markers and improvement measures for ward-based surgical care: a semistructured interview study.

American journal of surgery·2015
Same author

Using preoperative imaging for intraoperative guidance: a case of mistaken identity.

The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery : MRCAS·2015
Same author

The quality narrative in health care.

Lancet (London, England)·2015
Same author

The endoscopy evolution: 'the superscope era'.

Frontline gastroenterology·2015
Same author

A wearable mobility assessment device for total knee replacement: A longitudinal feasibility study.

International journal of surgery (London, England)·2015
Same author

A national incident reporting and learning system in England and Wales, but at what cost?

Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research·2015

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 7, 2026

Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
08:50

Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement

Published on: March 26, 2018

Minimal access aortic valve replacement: is it worth it?

Bari Murtuza1, John R Pepper, Rex DeL Stanbridge

  • 1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St. Mary's Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, England. b.murtuza@imperial.ac.uk

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
|February 23, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Minimal access aortic valve replacement (AVR) offers marginal benefits in recovery time but not significant clinical advantages over conventional AVR. Patient choice and aesthetics, not superior outcomes, should guide AVR method selection.

More Related Videos

Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
14:14

Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement

Published on: December 11, 2017

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
12:17

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots

Published on: May 21, 2017

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 7, 2026

Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
08:50

Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement

Published on: March 26, 2018

Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement
14:14

Standardized Technique of Aortic Valve Re-implantation for Valve-sparing Aortic Root Replacement

Published on: December 11, 2017

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
12:17

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots

Published on: May 21, 2017

Area of Science:

  • Cardiovascular Surgery
  • Minimally Invasive Procedures

Background:

  • Debate exists regarding the clinical efficacy of minimal access aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to conventional AVR.
  • Quantifying the impact of minimal access AVR on patient outcomes is crucial for clinical decision-making.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To conduct a meta-analysis comparing minimal access AVR with conventional AVR regarding morbidity and mortality.
  • To assess study heterogeneity and the robustness of findings through sensitivity analysis.

Main Methods:

  • A meta-analysis was performed on data from 4,667 patients comparing minimal access and conventional AVR.
  • Sensitivity analysis was employed to evaluate study heterogeneity and the reliability of the results.

Main Results:

  • Minimal access AVR showed marginal benefits in perioperative mortality (OR, 0.72; P=0.05), reduced ICU and hospital stays, and shorter ventilation times.
  • However, minimal access AVR involved longer cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and total operation times.
  • Study quality influenced perioperative mortality benefits; ICU and hospital stay benefits persisted upon sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions:

  • The observed benefits of minimal access AVR are marginal and potentially linked to study quality.
  • Minimal access AVR may be considered based on patient preference and cosmetic factors rather than definitive clinical superiority.