[Minimally invasive approach vs full sternotomy for aortic valve and ascending aorta replacement: results from our...

Aortic valve disease is the most common valvular heart disease. Surgical aortic valve replacement remains the gold-standard of treatment. Recently, minimally invasive approaches have been developed to reduce surgical trauma and to compete with percutaneous treatment of valvular heart disease. Minimally invasive approaches are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Single-center retrospective study comparing clinical data of patients submitted to surgical treatment of aortic stenosis by limited sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy between January 2014 and August 2016.

The demographic and clinical characteristics between the two groups were similar. Median surgery time was 142.5 min by limited sternotomy vs 98.15 min by conventional sternotomy (p< 0.0001). Total surgery time was 142.5 min for limited sternotomy vs 98.15 min conventional sternotomy (p< 0.0001). Aortic cross-clamping time and cardiopulmonary bypass time were 58.58 and 72.92 min for limited sternotomy vs 37.46 and 72.92 min for conventional sternotomy (p<0.0001). There were not statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding pos-operative time of ventilation (8.05h ± 1.65 limited sternotomy vs 16.31h ± 9.67 conventional sternotomy, p=0.42) and post-operative blood loss (432cc limited sternotomy vs 539cc conventional sternotomy, p=0.14). Use of vasopressor support was higher with limited sternotomy (46% vs 27.3% conventional sternotomy, p=0.07), although it was not statistically significant. Rate of re-operation (8% limited sternotomy vs 5.5% conventional sternotomy, p=0.90), median intensive care unit length of stay (59.04h limited sternotomy vs 50.75h conventional sternotomy, p=0.47) and total hospital length of stay (6.96 days limited sternotomy vs 7.7 days sternotomy, p=0.75) had no differences between the two groups. The rate of post-operative complications was similar between the two groups.

In our population there were not significant differences between the two approaches. It may be related to the early phase of the learning curve and to our good results concerning conventional sternotomy. Although surgery time, aortic cross-clamping time and cardiopulmonary bypass time were higher with limited sternotomy, it was not related to higher rates of post-operative complications. Limited sternotomy reduces surgical trauma and has cosmetic advantages. Our data encourages the minimally invasive surgery program of our Department.