Comparison of perioperative morbidity and mortality in minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve surgery

Girgis, SamerWG; Dokhan, AhmedL; Mazen, MahmoudH; Ibrahim, Islam M

doi:10.4103/mmj.mmj_767_17

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding intraoperative data, results are in line with previous studies. Dokhan et al [17] reported a similar statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding length of the surgical incision [19.28 ± 2.15 vs. 5.96 ± 0.84 cm in conventional versus minimal invasive groups respectively, P = 0.001].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Minimally Invasive versus Conventional Mitral Valve Surgery: Procedures and Early Outcomes

Emara

Rezk

Zaki

et al. 2021

International Journal of Medical Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Minimal invasive mitral valve surgery gained wide acceptance. However, criticism continuous about its ability to replace the conventional full sternotomy technique. Aim of the work:The study aimed to compare between the full sternotomy and less invasive approaches for mitral valve surgery. Patients and Methods:The study recruited 100 patients. They were allocated to one of two equal groups [the traditional and minimal invasive approach]. All patients were thoroughly evaluated by history taking, physical examination, laboratory and ancillary radiological investigations. Assessment included incision length, weaning events, aortic cross clamp time, total bypass and operative times, rate of conversion from minimally invasive technique to full sternotomy. In surgical intensive care unit, ventilation hours, post-operative pain and need for analgesia, re-exploration for bleeding, blood loss and blood transfusion, and any complications were documented. Results: Preoperative New York Heart Association [NYHA] class was significantly different between groups A and B. But, no significant difference was reported for patient demographic or preoperative data. The incision length and cross clamp time was shorter in A than B group [6.56±1.88 cm, 61.78±35.91 minutes' vs 12.54±1.78 cm, and 78.08±36.24 minutes, respectively]. Otherwise, the cannulation, bypass, operative times were significantly longer among group A. The ventilation, ICU stay, hospital stay, bleeding, serum creatinine and pain scores were significantly lower among group A. the postoperative events were comparable between both groups with slight increase of neurological events in A group [3 cases] than B group [2 cases]. At 6 months, both groups yielded non-significant difference, regardless of better outcome at direct postoperative time. Conclusion:Minimal invasive mitral valve surgery had a good short and mid-term outcome as the conventional sternotomy approach. It could replace the conventional approach as a gold-standard for mitral valve surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…These results are in line with previous studies. For example, Dokhan et al [17] reported comparable results in a study of 50 patients, and Ganie et al [16] reported comparable groups with respect to LVEF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%