Comparative study between aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy versus mini-sternotomy

Abstract

Background: The superiority of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) over the standard approach is the subject of ongoing research. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of AVR through full sternotomy versus mini-sternotomy.
 Methods: We included 60 patients who had AVR; 30 patients underwent AVR through J- or T-shaped mini-sternotomy, and 30 patients had a full sternotomy. We included patients who had isolated AVR and excluded patients who had a concomitant cardiac procedure, redo surgery, or those who needed annular dilatation. All patients had aortic and right atrial cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass. Study endpoints were operative times, postoperative complications and duration of ICU and hospital stays.
 Results: There were no differences between the two groups preoperatively. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was longer in the mini-sternotomy group (median: 100 (range: 65- 170) vs. 85 (55-160) min, respectively; p= 0.024). Operative time was non-significantly longer in the mini-sternotomy group 5 (4-6) hours vs. 4.5 (4-6) hours in the full sternotomy group (p=0.62). Ventilation time was 10 (4- 50) hours in the mini-sternotomy group vs. 14 (8- 45) hours in the full sternotomy group (p<0.001). ICU stay was shorter in the mini-sternotomy group (2 (1-6.5) vs. 2.5 (1-7) days, respectively, p= 0.014). The total mediastinal drainage was 100 (50 400) ml in the mini-sternotomy group vs. 275 (50- 1000) ml in the full sternotomy group (p= <0.001). There was no difference in wound infection (p= 0.35), tamponade (p˃0.99), and hemothorax (p˃0.99) between both groups.
 Conclusion: Mini-sternotomy AVR had longer cardiopulmonary bypass times; however, there were no differences in the postoperative complications compared to the full sternotomy approach. Mini-sternotomy could be a safe alternative approach to the full median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement.