Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2024; 72(02): 118-125
DOI: 10.1055/a-2041-3695
Original Cardiovascular

Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Root Surgery: Results of an Intermediate-Volume Center

Mahmoud Elghannam 
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Dritan Useini
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Vadim Moustafine
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Matthias Bechtel
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Hamid Naraghi
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Justus T. Strauch
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
,
Peter Lukas Haldenwang 
1   Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background We evaluate the outcome of aortic root surgery via an upper J-shaped mini-sternotomy (MS) versus full sternotomy (FS) in an intermediate-volume center.

Methods Between November 2011 and February 2019, 94 consecutive patients underwent aortic root surgery: 62 (66%) patients were operated via a J-shaped MS (group A) and 32 (34%) patients via FS (group B). The primary endpoints were mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE), and reoperation in a 2-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were perioperative complications and patient's satisfaction with the procedural results.

Results Valve sparing root replacement (David procedure) was performed in 13 (21%) of the MS and 7 (22%) of the FS patients. The Bentall procedure in MS versus FS was 49 (79%) versus 25 (78%), respectively. Both groups presented similar mean operation, cardiopulmonary bypass, and cross-clamp times. Postoperative bleeding was 534 ± 300 and 755 ± 402 mL (p = 0.01) in MS and FS, respectively, erythrocyte concentrate substitution was 3 ± 3 and 5.3 ± 4.8 (p = 0.018) in MS and FS, respectively, and pneumonia rates were 0 and 9.4% (p = 0.03) in MS and FS, respectively. The 30-day mortality was 0% in both groups, whereas MACCE was 1.6 and 3% (p = 0.45) in MS and FS, respectively. After 2 years, the mortality and MACCE were 4.6 and 9.5% (p = 0.11) and 4.6 and 0% (p = 0.66) in MS and FS, respectively. The number of patients who were satisfied with the surgical cosmetic results in groups A and B was 53 (85.4%) and 26 (81%), respectively.

Conclusion Aortic root surgery via MS is a safe alternative to FS even in an intermediate-volume center. It offers a shorter recovery time and similar midterm results.

Keywords

minimally invasive surgery - includes port access - minithoracotomy - aortic valve and root - aorta/aortic


Publication History

Received: 23 October 2022

Accepted: 13 February 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
23 February 2023

Article published online:
11 April 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F. et al. Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81 (05) 1599-1604
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Murtuza B, Pepper JR, Stanbridge RD. et al. Minimal access aortic valve replacement: is it worth it?. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 85 (03) 1121-1131
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Scarci M, Young C, Fallouh H. Is ministernotomy superior to conventional approach for aortic valve replacement?. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2009; 9 (02) 314-317
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Brown ML, McKellar SH, Sundt TM, Schaff HV. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (03) 670-679 .e5
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Skripochnik E, Michler RE, Hentschel V, Neragi-Miandoab S. The efficacy and outcome of ministernotomy compared with those of standard sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. ISRN Minim Invasive Surg 2014; 2014: 254084
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Lim JY, Deo SV, Altarabsheh SE. et al. Conventional versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: pooled analysis of propensity-matched data. J Card Surg 2015; 30 (02) 125-134
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Filip G, Bryndza MA, Konstanty-Kalandyk J. et al. Ministernotomy or sternotomy in isolated aortic valve replacement? Early results. Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol 2018; 15 (04) 213-218
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Totaro P, Carlini S, Pozzi M. et al. Minimally invasive approach for complex cardiac surgery procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 88 (02) 462-466 , discussion 467
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Shrestha M, Krueger H, Umminger J. et al. Minimally invasive valve sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) is safe. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4 (02) 148-153
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Monsefi N, Risteski P, Miskovic A, Moritz A, Zierer A. Midterm results of a minimally invasive approach in David procedure. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 66 (04) 301-306
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Perrotta S, Lentini S. Ministernotomy approach for surgery of the aortic root and ascending aorta. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2009; 9 (05) 849-858
    Google Scholar
  • 12 El-Sayed Ahmad A, Risteski P, Papadopoulos N, Radwan M, Moritz A, Zierer A. Minimally invasive approach for aortic arch surgery employing the frozen elephant trunk technique. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 50 (01) 140-144
    Google Scholar
  • 13 David TE, Feindel CM. An aortic valve-sparing operation for patients with aortic incompetence and aneurysm of the ascending aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992; 103 (04) 617-621 , discussion 622
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Bentall H, De Bono A. A technique for complete replacement of the ascending aorta. Thorax 1968; 23 (04) 338-339
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Mikus E, Micari A, Calvi S. et al. Mini-Bentall: an interesting approach for selected patients. Innovations (Phila) 2017; 12 (01) 41-45
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Hillebrand J, Alshakaki M, Martens S, Scherer M. Minimally invasive aortic root replacement with valved conduits through partial upper sternotomy. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 66 (04) 295-300
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Wachter K, Franke UF, Yadav R. et al. Feasibility and clinical outcome after minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2017; 24 (03) 377-383
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Charchyan ER, Breshenkov DG, Belov YV. Results of minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic root valve surgery: propensity score matching analysis. Kardiologiia 2020; 60 (07) 91-97
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Mookhoek A, Korteland NM, Arabkhani B. et al. Bentall procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101 (05) 1684-1689
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Bori Bata AK, D'Ostrevy N, Pereira B. et al. Valve-sparing aortic root replacement-midterm outcomes and quality of life. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2017; 7 (06) 572-580
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Sabol F, Kolesar A, Jankajova M. et al. Aortic valve-sparing operation versus Bentall and mechanical aortic valve replacement: midterm results. Bratisl Lek Listy 2014; 115 (05) 292-299
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Coselli JS, Hughes MS, Green SY. et al. Valve-sparing aortic root replacement: early and midterm outcomes in 83 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97 (04) 1267-1273 , discussion 1273–1274
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Sareyyupoglu B, Suri RM, Schaff HV. et al. Survival and reoperation risk following bicuspid aortic valve-sparing root replacement. J Heart Valve Dis 2009; 18 (01) 1-8
    Google Scholar