Ministernotomy or sternotomy in isolated aortic valve replacement? Early results

Introduction
Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the gold standard in treating symptomatic aortic valve defects. To improve the healing process and limit the trauma, the minimally invasive approach was introduced.

Aim
To compare the peri- and post-operative results of aortic valve replacement performed via conventional full sternotomy (con-AVR) and of AVR performed via partial upper sternotomy (mini-AVR).

Material and methods
The total study population was divided into 2 demographically homogeneous groups: mini-AVR (n = 74) and con-AVR (n = 76). There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative echocardiography.

Results
Aortic cross-clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time were significantly longer in the mini-AVR group. Shorter mechanical ventilation time, hospital stay and lower postoperative drainage were observed in the mini-AVR group (p < 0.05). Biological prostheses were more frequently implanted in the mini-AVR group (p < 0.05). Patients from the mini-AVR group reported less postoperative pain. No significant differences were found in the diameter of the implanted aortic prosthesis, the amount of inotropic agents and painkillers, postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), medium and maximum transvalvular gradient or the number of transfused blood units. There were no differences in the frequency of postoperative complications such as mortality, stroke, atrial fibrillation, renal failure, wound infection, sternal instability, or the need for rethoracotomy.

Conclusions
Ministernotomy for AVR is a safe method and does not increase morbidity and mortality. It significantly reduces post-operative blood loss and shortens hospital stay. Ministernotomy can be successfully used as an alternative method to sternotomy.