Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 18, 2025

Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
Mitral Valve Replacement via Minithoracotomy Versus Conventional Median Sternotomy in Rheumatic Mitral Valve Disease:
Hicham Kbiri1, Rachid Seddiki2, Abdellatif Chlouchi3
1Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Unit, and Emergency, Avicenna Military Hospital, Marrakech, MAR.
Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) for rheumatic mitral insufficiency offers reduced complications and shorter recovery compared to conventional sternotomy. Midterm outcomes remain equivalent, supporting MICS as a viable alternative in experienced centers.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Thoracic Surgery
- Medical Technology
Background:
- Rheumatic mitral insufficiency (RMI) often requires valve replacement.
- Conventional median sternotomy (CMS) is standard, but minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) is an emerging alternative.
- Comparative data for MICS vs. CMS in RMI, especially in resource-limited settings, is scarce.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare surgical outcomes, early complications, and midterm recovery between MICS and CMS for severe RMI.
- To evaluate the safety and efficacy of MICS as an alternative to CMS in a multicenter setting.
Main Methods:
- A multicenter retrospective study of 55 adult patients with severe RMI undergoing elective mechanical mitral valve replacement (2020-2024).
- Patients were divided into MICS (n=27) and conventional median sternotomy (CMS) (n=28) groups.
- Primary endpoint: 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints: operative times, complications, ICU/hospital stay, functional recovery, valve performance, and event-free survival.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in 30-day mortality between MICS (3.7%) and CMS (3.6%).
- MICS showed significantly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (68.3 vs. 87.5 min) and aortic cross-clamp times (54.7 vs. 77.1 min).
- MICS was associated with reduced pneumonia (0% vs. 10.7%), fewer arrhythmias (7.4% vs. 39.3%), and shorter hospital stay (6.2 vs. 7.3 days).
Conclusions:
- MICS for severe RMI demonstrated fewer early complications and shorter operative/recovery times compared to CMS.
- Midterm outcomes at 12 months, including left ventricular ejection fraction and event-free survival, were comparable between groups.
- MICS is a safe and effective alternative for selected RMI patients in experienced centers.
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Stenosis I: Introduction
Mitral Stenosis II: Clinical features and Diagnostic Tests
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Regurgitation I: Introduction
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management

