Objective: Minimally invasive heart surgeries are approaches used to reduce trauma, to give better cosmetic results and to reduce hospital costs with the same safety as conventional surgery. This study was designed to compare the operative results from patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with those who were submitted to the standard procedure.Method: The operative and immediate postoperative results of 12 consecutive patients who received minimally invasive isolated aortic valve replacements from June 2002 to February 2003 were compared to 12 patients who underwent to traditional approach in the same institution. The minimally invasive access used was superior median hemisternotomy where cardiopulmonary bypass was established through ascending aorta and right atrium cannulation, similar to the traditional technique.Results: The demographics of the patients were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences between aortic clamping time, total bypass time and operating time. The skin incision length was statistically shorter in the minimally invasive group. In the postoperative course, the mechanical ventilation time and the total hospital stay were shorter, but not statistically significant, in the minimally invasive group. The morbidity was the same in two groups.Conclusions: This surgical approach provides adequate exposure of the cardiac structures necessary to perform a safe valve replacement. With the same instruments used in the traditional surgery we can offer the benefits of a less invasive access with the same efficiency as in the conventional approach without adding any risks to our patients. Descriptors