Background. Benefits of ministernotomy have been reported but not yet fully established in the current literature. Ministernotomy may be associated with less bleeding, less need for transfusion, and reduced hospital length of stay. Methods. We retrospectively evaluated 347 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement between 2007 and 2011 at our institution. Results. Standard sternotomy was performed in 303 patients (154 males, 50.8% and 149 females, 49.2%) and ministernotomy in 44 patients (13 males, 30% and 30 females, 70%); most of the patients in ministernotomy group were female (75%) . The mean age for ministernotomy patients was years and for sternotomy patients years . Significant preoperative morbidities (for ministernotomy and sternotomy, resp.) included stroke (11%, versus 18%, ; ), PVD (23%, versus 16%, ; ), COPD (25%, versus 17%, ; ), renal failure (0.0%, versus 8.8%, ; ), and previous heart surgery (9%, versus 9.5%, ; ). Intraoperative blood transfusion was required in 23% of ministernotomy patients and 30% of sternotomy patients , . Major postoperative complications (for ministernotomy and sternotomy, resp.) included exploration for bleeding (4.5%, versus 6%, ; ) and adverse neurologic events (4.5%, versus 1.6%, ; ). The length of stay (LOS) in the CCU was hours for the ministernotomy group and hours for the sternotomy group . The LOS was slightly shorter following ministernotomy ( days) compared to sternotomy ( days) . Perioperative mortality was 2.3% for ministernotomy and 3.3% for sternotomy . The 1-, 3-, and 7-year survival following ministernotomy was 93.8%, 93.8%, and 88.3%, respectively; following sternotomy, these rates were 87.7%, 83.7%, and 82.6%, respectively (95% CI 0.273 to 1.325, ). Conclusion. Ministernotomy is less invasive and is associated with less perioperative and postoperative bleeding and reduced LOS in CCU and in hospital. 1. Introduction Although conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the standard in many institutions, minimally invasive techniques are growing in popularity. The ministernotomy may reduce operative blood loss, postoperative respiratory complications, sternal wound infection, cost, and length of stay (LOS) in critical care units (CCU) as well as overall LOS in the hospital. Other advantages include cosmetic benefits such as a smaller incision and keeping the sternum intact in the lower half of the chest [1]. Although some authors have recommended the ministernotomy for AVR [2, 3], others have reported no advantage of minimally invasive AVR in early or midterm followup [4,
References
[1]
E. Khoshbin, S. Prayaga, J. Kinsella, and F. W. H. Sutherland, “Mini-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement reduces the length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials,” BMJ Open, vol. 1, no. 2, Article ID e000266, 2011.
[2]
S. J. Bahamondes, S. Gustavo Meri？o, A. Juan Salman, V. Abelardo Silva, and G. Jean Pierre Droguett, “Ministernotomy for aortic valve surgery: report of 20 patients,” Revista Medica de Chile, vol. 136, no. 9, pp. 1141–1146, 2008.
[3]
A. Dell'Amore, M. Del Giglio, S. Calvi et al., “Mini re-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement in patients with patent coronary bypass grafts,” Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 94–97, 2009.
[4]
C. Detter, T. Deuse, D. H. Boehm, H. Reichenspurner, and B. Reichart, “Midterm results and quality of life after minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement,” Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 337–341, 2002.
[5]
J. Calderon, P. Richebe, J. P. Guibaud et al., “Prospective randomized study of early pulmonary evaluation of patients scheduled for aortic valve surgery performed by ministernotomy or total median sternotomy,” Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 795–801, 2009.
[6]
M. Tabata, Z. Khalpey, P. S. Shekar, and L. H. Cohn, “Reoperative minimal access aortic valve surgery: minimal mediastinal dissection and minimal injury risk,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 136, no. 6, pp. 1564–1568, 2008.
[7]
J. G. Byrne, D. H. Adams, G. S. Couper, R. J. Rizzo, L. H. Cohn, and S. F. Aranki, “Minimally-invasive aortic root replacement,” The heart surgery forum, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 326–329, 1999.
[8]
J. G. Byrne, S. F. Aranki, G. S. Couper et al., “Reoperative aortic valve replacement: partial upper hemisternotomy versus conventional full sternotomy,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 118, no. 6, pp. 991–997, 1999.
[9]
P. Totaro, S. Carlini, M. Pozzi et al., “Minimally invasive approach for complex cardiac surgery procedures,” Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 88, no. 2, pp. 462–467, 2009.
[10]
E. A. Grossi, D. F. Loulmet, C. F. Schwartz et al., “Minimally invasive valve surgery with antegrade perfusion strategy is not associated with increased neurologic complications,” Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 1346–1350, 2011.
[11]
A. W. ElBardissi, P. Shekar, G. S. Couper, and L. H. Cohn, “Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in octogenarian, high-risk, transcatheter aortic valve implantation candidates,” Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 141, no. 2, pp. 328–335, 2011.
[12]
M. Bonacchi, E. Prifti, G. Giunti, G. Frati, and G. Sani, “Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study,” Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 460–465, 2002.
[13]
A. M. Gillinov, M. K. Banbury, and D. M. Cosgrove, “Hemisternotomy approach for aortic and mitral valve surgery,” Journal of Cardiac Surgery, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 15–20, 2000.
[14]
D. B. S. MacDonald, K. J. Buth, A. M. Yip, and J.-F. Légaré, “Versatility of hemisternotomy for cardiac surgery,” Journal of Cardiac Surgery, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 6–10, 2009.
