Ministernotomy in Aortic Root and Arch Surgery: Early Outcomes

Minimally invasive versus conventional methods for aortic root surgery: Choosing the right approach

“…Although our study did not find any significant differences in recovery outcomes between the matched groups, we observed a clear trend and found differences in the unmatched cohort, specifically in terms of ICU stay ( p = 0.009) and postoperative ventilation time ( p = 0.036). Other studies 6–9 have also reported shorter ventilation time in the minimally invasive group and a higher rate of prolonged ventilation in the standard group. 10…”

“…Although our study did not find any significant differences in recovery outcomes between the matched groups, we observed a clear trend and found differences in the unmatched cohort, specifically in terms of ICU stay (p = 0.009) and postoperative ventilation time (p = 0.036). Other studies [6][7][8][9] have also reported shorter ventilation time in the minimally invasive group and a higher rate of prolonged ventilation in the standard group. 4) 2 ( 7) 1.000 Blood transfusion i/o (ml), median (Q1-Q3) 0 0 1.000 Blood transfusion p/o (ml), median (Q1-Q3) 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 0.664 Plasma transfusion i/o, (%) 3 ( 12) 14 (45) 0.008 Plasma transfusion p/o, (%) 5 ( 19) 5 ( 16 In our study, particular attention was paid to the blood loss outcomes.…”

“…Our results revealed a significant difference in 24-h blood loss ( p = 0.029) and postoperative blood transfusion volume ( p = 0.023), consistent with Harky's study ( p = 0.01) 3 and several subsequent studies. 6,8,9 Additionally, Shah and colleagues, in a study on selective cohorts with the Bentall-de-Bono procedure, reported a higher rate of reexploration for bleeding in the standard group ( p = 0.043). 7 Levack also identified a benefit on the PS approach regarding postoperative plasma transfusion.…”

Minimally invasive versus conventional methods for aortic root surgery: Choosing the right approach

“…Although our study did not find any significant differences in recovery outcomes between the matched groups, we observed a clear trend and found differences in the unmatched cohort, specifically in terms of ICU stay ( p = 0.009) and postoperative ventilation time ( p = 0.036). Other studies 6–9 have also reported shorter ventilation time in the minimally invasive group and a higher rate of prolonged ventilation in the standard group. 10…”

“…Although our study did not find any significant differences in recovery outcomes between the matched groups, we observed a clear trend and found differences in the unmatched cohort, specifically in terms of ICU stay (p = 0.009) and postoperative ventilation time (p = 0.036). Other studies [6][7][8][9] have also reported shorter ventilation time in the minimally invasive group and a higher rate of prolonged ventilation in the standard group. 4) 2 ( 7) 1.000 Blood transfusion i/o (ml), median (Q1-Q3) 0 0 1.000 Blood transfusion p/o (ml), median (Q1-Q3) 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 0.664 Plasma transfusion i/o, (%) 3 ( 12) 14 (45) 0.008 Plasma transfusion p/o, (%) 5 ( 19) 5 ( 16 In our study, particular attention was paid to the blood loss outcomes.…”

“…Our results revealed a significant difference in 24-h blood loss ( p = 0.029) and postoperative blood transfusion volume ( p = 0.023), consistent with Harky's study ( p = 0.01) 3 and several subsequent studies. 6,8,9 Additionally, Shah and colleagues, in a study on selective cohorts with the Bentall-de-Bono procedure, reported a higher rate of reexploration for bleeding in the standard group ( p = 0.043). 7 Levack also identified a benefit on the PS approach regarding postoperative plasma transfusion.…”

Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: A State-of-the-Art Review

“…MS demonstrated excellent results for AVR and aortic surgery, proving to be safe and showing shorter ICU and hospital stays, less pain, and decreased costs [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 43 , 44 ]. A great aspect of MS is that it is performed through standard surgical instruments, so no learning curve for specific tools is needed.…”

Minimally invasive versus conventional techniques for proximal aortic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed patient-level data

“…Thus, outcomes are closely tied to surgeon experience. 18 Hou et al reported significantly shorter CPB and cross-clamp times in the minimally invasive group, though their procedures were performed by highly experienced surgeons. 16 In contrast, Lamelas et al observed longer cross-clamp durations, which may reflect less familiarity with minimally invasive techniques at their center at the time.…”

Minimally invasive versus conventional methods for aortic root surgery: Choosing the right approach

“…Although our study did not find any significant differences in recovery outcomes between the matched groups, we observed a clear trend and found differences in the unmatched cohort, specifically in terms of ICU stay ( p = 0.009) and postoperative ventilation time ( p = 0.036). Other studies 6–9 have also reported shorter ventilation time in the minimally invasive group and a higher rate of prolonged ventilation in the standard group. 10…”

“…Although our study did not find any significant differences in recovery outcomes between the matched groups, we observed a clear trend and found differences in the unmatched cohort, specifically in terms of ICU stay (p = 0.009) and postoperative ventilation time (p = 0.036). Other studies [6][7][8][9] have also reported shorter ventilation time in the minimally invasive group and a higher rate of prolonged ventilation in the standard group. 4) 2 ( 7) 1.000 Blood transfusion i/o (ml), median (Q1-Q3) 0 0 1.000 Blood transfusion p/o (ml), median (Q1-Q3) 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 0.664 Plasma transfusion i/o, (%) 3 ( 12) 14 (45) 0.008 Plasma transfusion p/o, (%) 5 ( 19) 5 ( 16 In our study, particular attention was paid to the blood loss outcomes.…”

“…Our results revealed a significant difference in 24-h blood loss ( p = 0.029) and postoperative blood transfusion volume ( p = 0.023), consistent with Harky's study ( p = 0.01) 3 and several subsequent studies. 6,8,9 Additionally, Shah and colleagues, in a study on selective cohorts with the Bentall-de-Bono procedure, reported a higher rate of reexploration for bleeding in the standard group ( p = 0.043). 7 Levack also identified a benefit on the PS approach regarding postoperative plasma transfusion.…”

Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: A State-of-the-Art Review

“…MS demonstrated excellent results for AVR and aortic surgery, proving to be safe and showing shorter ICU and hospital stays, less pain, and decreased costs [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 43 , 44 ]. A great aspect of MS is that it is performed through standard surgical instruments, so no learning curve for specific tools is needed.…”

Minimally invasive versus conventional techniques for proximal aortic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed patient-level data

“…Thus, outcomes are closely tied to surgeon experience. 18 Hou et al reported significantly shorter CPB and cross-clamp times in the minimally invasive group, though their procedures were performed by highly experienced surgeons. 16 In contrast, Lamelas et al observed longer cross-clamp durations, which may reflect less familiarity with minimally invasive techniques at their center at the time.…”

Minimally invasive versus conventional methods for aortic root surgery: Choosing the right approach

“…Although our study did not find any significant differences in recovery outcomes between the matched groups, we observed a clear trend and found differences in the unmatched cohort, specifically in terms of ICU stay ( p = 0.009) and postoperative ventilation time ( p = 0.036). Other studies 6–9 have also reported shorter ventilation time in the minimally invasive group and a higher rate of prolonged ventilation in the standard group. 10…”

“…Although our study did not find any significant differences in recovery outcomes between the matched groups, we observed a clear trend and found differences in the unmatched cohort, specifically in terms of ICU stay (p = 0.009) and postoperative ventilation time (p = 0.036). Other studies [6][7][8][9] have also reported shorter ventilation time in the minimally invasive group and a higher rate of prolonged ventilation in the standard group. 4) 2 ( 7) 1.000 Blood transfusion i/o (ml), median (Q1-Q3) 0 0 1.000 Blood transfusion p/o (ml), median (Q1-Q3) 0 (0-0) 0 (0-0) 0.664 Plasma transfusion i/o, (%) 3 ( 12) 14 (45) 0.008 Plasma transfusion p/o, (%) 5 ( 19) 5 ( 16 In our study, particular attention was paid to the blood loss outcomes.…”

“…Our results revealed a significant difference in 24-h blood loss ( p = 0.029) and postoperative blood transfusion volume ( p = 0.023), consistent with Harky's study ( p = 0.01) 3 and several subsequent studies. 6,8,9 Additionally, Shah and colleagues, in a study on selective cohorts with the Bentall-de-Bono procedure, reported a higher rate of reexploration for bleeding in the standard group ( p = 0.043). 7 Levack also identified a benefit on the PS approach regarding postoperative plasma transfusion.…”

Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: A State-of-the-Art Review

“…MS demonstrated excellent results for AVR and aortic surgery, proving to be safe and showing shorter ICU and hospital stays, less pain, and decreased costs [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 43 , 44 ]. A great aspect of MS is that it is performed through standard surgical instruments, so no learning curve for specific tools is needed.…”

Minimally invasive versus conventional techniques for proximal aortic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed patient-level data

“…Thus, outcomes are closely tied to surgeon experience. 18 Hou et al reported significantly shorter CPB and cross-clamp times in the minimally invasive group, though their procedures were performed by highly experienced surgeons. 16 In contrast, Lamelas et al observed longer cross-clamp durations, which may reflect less familiarity with minimally invasive techniques at their center at the time.…”