Objective Clinical benefits of minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery (MIVS) have been reported. Improved postoperative mental status was never analyzed with dedicated psychological tests. In the present study we intend to investigate potential benefits of MIVS for patient psychological well-being, with special attention to the relevance of the patient perception of the chest surgical scar, of the self body image and cosmetic aspects. Methods Between 2016 and 2017, 87 eligible patients, age 66.5 ± 14.5 years, operated on for heart valve surgery, underwent either conventional full sternotomy (CS; n = 48) or MIVS by V-shape hemi-sternotomy approach ( n = 39). Before selection of the surgical approach, patients had undergone preoperative evaluation of their psychological status using Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y (STAI-Y), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) psychological tests. Six months postoperatively, patients filled in dedicated questionnaires to assess their psychological status, quality of life, and subjective perception, thus repeating the above-mentioned tests and adding the Body Image Questionnaire (BIQ) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) v2.0 tests for scar-healing process evaluation. Results No patient died during the study.The 4 post-test scales of psychological well-being (BDI-II P = 0.04, STAI-Y P = 0.04, 2 indices of EQ-5D P = 0.03, P = 0.01) showed significant differences between the MIVS group and CS group, with MIVS-small incision patients having lower level of depression and anxiety symptoms and better quality of life. Mean score differences of scar perception (BIQ and POSAS v2.0) were significant, with MIVS patients having evaluated the scar quality significantly better than CS patients. Conclusions MIVS appears associated with significant esthetical and related psychological benefits, as documented by technical tests. These findings should be considered when selecting the most appropriate technique for heart valve surgery.

Objective Aortic valve disease is more and more common in western countries. While percutaneous approaches should be preferred in older adults, previous reports have shown good outcomes after surgery. Moreover, advantages of minimally invasive approaches may be valuable for octogenarians. We sought to compare outcomes of conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) in octogenarians. Methods We retrospectively collected data of 75 consecutive octogenarians who underwent primary, elective, isolated aortic valve surgery through conventional approach (41 patients, group CAVR) or partial upper sternotomy (34 patients, group MIAVR). Results Mean age was 81.9 ± 0.9 and 82.3 ± 1.1 years in CAVR and MIAVR patients, respectively ( P = 0.09). MIAVR patients had lower 24-hour chest drain output (353.4 ± 207.1 vs 501.7 ± 229.9 mL, P < 0.01), shorter mechanical ventilation (9.6 ± 2.4 vs 11.3 ± 2.3 hours, P < 0.01), lower need for blood transfusions (35.3% vs 63.4%, P = 0.02), and shorter hospital stay (6.8 ± 1.6 vs 8.3 ± 4.3 days, P < 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was zero in both groups. Survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 89.9%, 80%, and 47%, respectively, in the CAVR group, and 93.2%, 82.4%, and 61.8% in the MIAVR group, with no statistically significant differences (log-rank test, P = 0.35). Conclusions Aortic valve surgery in older patients provided excellent results, as long as appropriate candidates were selected. MIAVR was associated with shorter mechanical ventilation, reduced blood transfusions, and reduced hospitalization length, without affecting perioperative complications or mid-term survival.