Bentall and Mini-Bentall Procedure

Chakos, Adam; Yan, Tristan D.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-24174-2_34

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…. 1,2,5,11,14 No significant between-group differences in other postoperative outcomes were noted, except for time on the ventilator and reoperations for bleeding. The mini-Bentall group required significantly less time on the ventilator (5.5 hours vs 17 hours; P <.001), possibly related to preserved respiratory mechanics from less trauma.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…OS rates at 1 year and 3 years were both 100%, comparable to other studies, in which they ranged from 94.1% to 100% and from 80.0% to 97.2%, respectively. 1 , 2 , 5 , 11 , 14 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aortic root replacement (ARR) with composite valve graft (the Bentall procedure) is used to treat ascending aorta and aortic root pathology with good early and long-term results. 1 , 2 The procedure is traditionally performed using a full sternotomy (FS; full Bentall) to provide excellent exposure to the ascending aorta, aortic root, and heart. However, an approach to ARR using an upper mini-sternotomy (UMS) could offer less need for blood transfusions, reduced pain, improved respiratory function, and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) compared with its FS counterpart without compromising procedural exposure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The mini-Bentall approach: Comparison with full sternotomy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The upper mini sternotomy Bentall (mini-Bentall) procedure may result in less trauma and earlier recovery compared with the full sternotomy Bentall procedure (full Bentall). This study compares immediate and 1-and 3-year survival rates after mini-and full Bentall procedures. Methods: Between February 2009 and July 2019, 48 patients underwent a mini-Bentall and 49 underwent a full Bentall. Patients who required concomitant procedures, reoperations, or hypothermic circulatory arrest were excluded from our analysis. The mean patient age was 60.7 years in the mini-Bentall group and 59.0 years in the full Bentall group. Results: There were no in-hospital mortalities. The median cardiopulmonary bypass time (mini-Bentall: 165 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 155.5-183 minutes]; full Bentall: 164 minutes [IQR, 150-187 minutes]; P ¼ .619) and aortic cross-clamp times (139 minutes [IQR, 128.5-153 minutes] vs 137 minutes [IQR, 125-156 minutes]; P ¼ .948) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The mini-Bentall group had a significantly shorter median ventilation time compared with the full Bentall group (5.5 hours [IQR, 3-14 hours] vs 17 hours [IQR, 11-23 hours]; P<.001). None of the patients in the mini-Bentall group had postoperative bleeding necessitating reoperation, whereas 4 patients (8.2%) underwent reoperation after full Bentall (P ¼ .043). The mini-Bentall group also had a shorter median hospital length of stay (6 days [IQR, 5-8 days] vs 7 days [IQR, 6-8 days]; P ¼ .086). Survival at 1 and 3 years was 100% in both cohorts.Conclusions: Patients required significantly less ventilation time and reoperations for bleeding after the mini-Bentall procedure. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamp times, or intensive care unit and hospital length of stay between the mini-Bentall and full Bentall groups. The mini-Bentall approach is associated with low morbidity and mortality. (JTCVS Techniques 2021;7:59-66) J-type mini-sternotomy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…OS rates at 1 year and 3 years were both 100%, comparable to other studies, in which they ranged from 94.1% to 100% and from 80.0% to 97.2%, respectively. 1 , 2 , 5 , 11 , 14 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation