Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study

The 30 Day Complication Rate After Aortic Valve Replacement with a Pericardial Valve in a Mainly Geriatric Population

“…These could be 1) minimal surgical access, 2) minimal extracorporeal circulation and 3) transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The first alternative, minimal surgical access by ministernotomy (85)(86)(87)(88) and anterolateral minithoracotomy (89-91) could expose the surgical field adequately. Possible indications could be obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (86) and previous chest irratiation or CABG with patent left internal mammary artery (91).…”

“…Possible indications could be obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (86) and previous chest irratiation or CABG with patent left internal mammary artery (91). Some advantages have been described such as an economic benefit, improved cosmetic result, decrease in postoperative morbidity, length of stay, pain, blood loss and transfusion (86)(87)(88)(89)(90)92). Cross clamping time had increased, however (88).…”

015 * Propensity Score Analysis of Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

“…In spite of that, randomized controlled trails as well as meta-analysis studies (Aris et al, 1999;J. M. Brown et al, 2009;Dogan et al, 2003;Murtuza et al, 2008) were not able to show a convincing superiority of MIAVR over CAVR.…”

“…Over the past two decades, minimally access cardiac surgery has been increasingly adopted with the goal to reduce the invasiveness of surgical procedures and aiming in the same time to give the same quality, safety and results of the conventional surgery. In spite of that, randomized controlled trails as well as meta-analysis studies (Aris et al, 1999;J. M. Brown et al, 2009;Dogan et al, 2003;Murtuza et al, 2008), were not able to show a convincing superiority of MIAVR over CAVR Aim: This study aimed to determine whether the MIAVR via upper partial sternotomy offers significant advantages in the postoperative outcomes (morbidities and mortalities) over CAVR via standard full sternotomy.…”

“…Although, retrospective studies (Liu, Sidiropoulos, & Konertz, 1999;Vanoverbeke et al, 2004) as well as prospective randomized studies (Aris et al, 1999;Bonacchi et al, 2002) Doll and colleagues reported a non-significant difference between MIAVR and CAVR in regard to the type of the prostheses used, but the rate of the implanted mechanical prostheses (55% and 52%, p=0.8) was higher in both groups than the implanted bioprostheses (45% and 47%, p=0.8 respectively) (Doll et al, 2002). Bakir and associates also found no significant differences in the type of the used prostheses between MIAVR and CAVR groups, but the rate of the implanted bioprostheses was higher in both groups (76.6% and 79.2%, p=0.75) than the rate of the implanted mechanical prostheses (23.3% and 20.8%, p=0.55) (Bakir et al, 2006).…”