Abstract
Background:
the theoretical advantages of mini-invasive cardiac surgery are shorter hospitalisation, better surgical results and costs reduction. In November 1997 we started a non-coronary mini-invasive surgery program using a partial upper median sternotomy. This study has been conceived to retrospectively compare two groups of patients who underwent isolate aortic valve replacement using the conventional and the mini-invasive technique.
Material and methods:
in Group A 100 patients (mean age 62±12 years; 58 male) underwent isolated aortic valve replacement through a partial upper median sternotomy. Group B was composed by the last 100 patients (mean age 63±8 years; 56 male) who underwent the same operation through a conventional median sternotomy. For both groups we recorded the ECC and ischaemic times, postoperative intubation time, total postoperative bleeding, intensive care unit length of stay and total hospitalisation time. Major and minor complications were reported.
Results:
operating times, were significantly longer in Group A (p<0.001). Mechanical ventilation time, 1CU and total hospital stay, and total postoperative bleeding showed no significant difference. Adjunctive statistical evidenced the absence of learning curve. Mortality and other complications failed to reveal any significant difference between the two groups.
Conclusions:
in our experience, partial upper median sternotomy does not increase surgical risks but failed to demonstrate clear advantages. Apart for an increase in operating times, the surgical results are similar to those of a conventional median sternotomy with only improvement in the aesthetical aspect. In our opinion, this supports the conviction that this approach can be proposed to selected patients, to obtain a better cosmethical result for the same given risk.