J-Shaped Upper Mini-Sternotomy Versus Full Sternotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comparative Study

Authors

  • Álvaro Borrero, MD Cardiovascular Surgery Unit, Fundación Valle del Lili, Colombia
  • Tatiana Samboni Health Sciences Faculty, Icesi University, Colombia
  • Natalia Prado, MD Cardiovascular Surgery Unit, Fundación Valle del Lili, Colombia
  • Diana Cristina Carrillo-Gómez, MD, MSc Cardiology Service, Heart Failure Unit, Fundación Valle del Lili, Colombia
  • German Camilo Giraldo-González, MD Cardiology Service, Heart Failure Unit, Fundación Valle del Lili, Colombia;
  • Liliana Flórez-Elvira, MSc Clinical Research Center, Fundación Valle del Lili, Colombia
  • Eduardo Cadavid-Alvear, MD Cardiovascular Surgery Unit, Fundación Valle del Lili, Colombia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.2815

Keywords:

Sternotomy, Valvular Heart Diseases, Aortic Valve Stenosis, Aortic Valve Insufficiency, Cardiac Surgical Procedures, Minimally invasive surgical procedures, Aortic Valve replacement

Abstract

Background: This study aims to compare the characteristics between patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) through a J-shaped upper mini-sternotomy (UMS) and patients who underwent full sternotomy (FS) in the basis of clinical care and hospital outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted on adult patients who were subjected to AVR by UMS from 2014 to 2017, compared with a historical control of patients who had undergone UMS by FS from 2011 to 2014. Patients, who received combined valve replacement or aortic surgery, as well as heart valve reinterventions due to endocarditis, were excluded. Sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, hospital and intensive care stay, blood transfusions, complications, and mortality of both procedures were compared.

Results: There were 57 patients under UMS and
99 patients under FS included in this study. The median age was 67 years, and 56.77% of the patients were male. No differences were observed in the past medical history and the type of valve implanted between the groups. During surgery, patients under UMS received a lower percentage of red blood cell and platelet transfusions compared with FS. However, UMS had a higher percentage of cryoprecipitate transfusion. Intensive care stay was shorter in UMS compared with FS (three days; interquartile range [IQR], 2–4; and four days; IQR, 2–6, respectively) without differences in overall hospital stay, postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality.

Conclusions: The J-shaped upper mini-sternotomy is a feasible surgical technique that does not increase in-hospital or 30-day mortality, neither hospital stay nor
infectious complications.

References

Ahangar AG, Charag AH, Wani ML, et al. 2013. Comparing aortic valve replacement through right anterolateral thoracotomy with median sternotomy. Int. Cardiovasc. Res. J. 7:90-4.

Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS, et al. 1997. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg 226:421-426.

Dalen M, Biancari F, Rubino AS, et al. 2016. Aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy with a stented bioprosthesis versus minimally invasive sternotomy with a sutureless bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 49:220-7.

Ghanta RK, Lapar DJ, Kern JA, et al. 2015. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: A real-world multi-institutional analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 149:1060-65.

Gilmanov D, Bevilacqua S, Murzi M, et al. 2013. Minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 96:837-43.

Glauber M, Ferrarini M, Miceli A. 2015. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: state of the art and future directions. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 4:26-32.

Johnston DR, Roselli EE. 2015. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: Cleveland Clinic experience. Ann. Cardiothorac. Surg.4:140-7.

Kaczmarczyk M, Szałański P, Zembala M, et al. 2015. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement-pros and cons of keyhole aortic surgery. Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery. 12:103-10.

Korach A, Shemin RJ, Hunter CT, Bao Y, Shapira OM. 2010. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a 10-year experience. J Cardiovasc Surg 51:417-21.

Lehmann S, Merk DR, Etz CD, et al. 2015. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: the Leipzig experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 4:49-56.

Mill MR, Anderson RH, Cohn LH. 2017. Surgical anatomy of the heart. In: Hill M, ed. Cardiac Surgery in the Adult. 5th ed. 21-42.

Nair SK, Sudarshan CD, Thorpe BS, et al. 2018. Mini-Stern Trial: A randomized trial comparing mini-sternotomy to full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 156:2124-2132.e2131.

Salenger R, Gammie JS, Collins JA. 2016. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. J Card Surg 31:38-50.

Shehada SE, Ozturk O, Wottke M, Lange R. 2016. Propensity score analysis of outcomes following minimal access versus conventional aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 49: 464-469; 469-470.

Svensson LG. 2007. Minimally invasive surgery with a partial sternotomy "J" approach. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 19:299-303.

Published

2020-06-12

How to Cite

Borrero, Álvaro, Samboni, T. J., Prado, N., Carrillo-Gómez, D. C., Giraldo-Gonzalez, G. C., Florez-Elvira, L., & Cadavid-Alvear, E. (2020). J-Shaped Upper Mini-Sternotomy Versus Full Sternotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement: A Comparative Study. The Heart Surgery Forum, 23(4), E411-E415. https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.2815

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)