Abstract
Objective
This study was carried out with the aim of presenting our experience with minimally invasive mitral surgery and compare the endoaortic clamp with the external aortic clamp (EAC) techniques.
Methods
Between December 2002 and May 2009, 139 patients (75 men, aged 63 ± 11 years) underwent video-assisted mitral valve surgery through right thoracotomy. Twelve (9%) patients were operated without clamping the aorta, 32 (23%) patients (group A) were operated on by using the endoaortic clamp, and 95 (68%) patients were operated on by using the EAC (group B). There was no significant difference between groups A and B regarding preoperative variables.
Results
Intraoperative procedure-associated problems were experienced in three group A patients (9.3%, two aortic dissections with conversion to sternotomy; one conversion due to bad exposure) and in two group B patients (2%, one conversion to sternotomy for bleeding and one for ascending aorta hematoma). At a mean follow-up of 32 months, 121 patients (97%) were in New York Heart Association class I–II, with satisfactory echocardiographic results. There was one in-hospital and six late deaths (three noncardiac, two cardiac, and one valve related). Five-year actuarial survival was 88% ± 8%. There were three reoperations, one early (<30 days) after complex mitral valve repair, with a 5-year freedom from reoperation of 97% ± 2%. Postoperative levels of myocardial cytonecrosis enzymes as well as the extracorporeal circulation time were significantly lower in group B patients (P < 0.05).
Conclusions
Intraoperative procedure-associated complications with endoclamping combined with an apparently better myocardial protection forced us to change our practice to the more simple and economic EAC technique.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.