Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 15, 2025
Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
Comparing left ventricular assist device inflow cannula angle between median sternotomy and thoracotomy using 3D
Madeleine Pearman1,2, Sam Emmanuel1,2,3,4, Paul Jansz1,2,3,4
1St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Background:
Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation via thoracotomy has many potential advantages compared to conventional sternotomy, including improved inflow cannula (IFC) positioning. We compared the difference in IFC angles, postoperative, and long-term outcomes for patients with LVADs implanted via thoracotomy and sternotomy.
Methods:
A single-center, retrospective analysis of 14 patients who underwent thoracotomy implantation was performed and matched with 28 patients who underwent sternotomy LVAD implantations for a total of 42 patients. Inclusion required a minimum LVAD support duration of 30 days and excluded concomitant procedures. A postoperative CT-chest was used to measure the angle the between the IFC and mitral valve in two-dimensions and results were compared with three-dimensional reconstruction using the same CT chest. Outcome data were extracted from medical records.
Results:
There was no significant difference in gender, INTERMACS score, BMI, or age between the two groups. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the thoracotomy group compared to the sternotomy group, 107 min (86-122) versus 76 min (56-93), p < 0.01. 3D reconstructions revealed less deviation of the IFC away from the mitral valve in devices implanted via thoracotomy compared to sternotomy, median (IQR) angle 16.3° (13.9°-21.0°) versus 23.2° (17.9°-26.4°), p < 0.01. Rates of pump thrombosis, stroke, and gastrointestinal bleeding were not significantly different.
Conclusions:
Devices implanted via thoracotomy demonstrated less deviation away from mitral valve. However, there was no difference in morbidity between the two approaches. 3D reconstruction of the heart is an innovative technique to measure angulation and is clinically advantageous when compared to 2D imaging.
