J-sternotomy incision for aortic valve surgery: an initial experience of a tertiary care hospital

Objectives: This study aims to present our single-center experience of an aortic valve replacement using a minimally invasive J-sternotomy incision and to compare the early clinical outcomes of these procedures with a median sternotomy. Patients and methods: Between January 2014 and May 2015, 38 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement operations using a minimally invasive or a conventional sternotomy. A J-sternotomy (group JS) incision was used on 18 patients (12 males, 6 females; mean age 57.0±17.9 years; range 19 to 62 years), whereas a median sternotomy (group MS) incision was performed on 20 patients (13 males, 7 females; mean age 57.4±16.3 years; range 22 to 65 years). Preoperative characteristics, perioperative data and early outcomes were compared. Patient selection techniques, the surgical approach and our experience during the procedures were presented. Results: No mortality developed. The types (p=0.36) and dimensions (p=0.99) of implanted aortic valves were similar between the groups. There was no significant difference between the JS and MS groups in terms of cross-clamp (68.4±30.1 vs. 64.7±29.9 minutes, p=0.70) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (112.3±43.1 vs. 94.8±43.8 minutes, p=0.22). In the group JS, conversion to full sternotomy was needed in one patient due to poor surgical exposure. The lengths of intensive care unit [1.7±1.7 vs 2.2±1.2 days, (p=0.33)] and hospital [7.1±2.7 vs 7.2±1.2 days, (p=0.66)] stays were similar between the groups. A mediastinal exploration due to bleeding was performed using a full sternotomy in two patients (11.2%) from group JS. There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. Conclusion: Since it is minimally invasive for aortic valve replacement using a J-sternotomy incision is a safe and reproducible procedure. The use of a minimally invasive aortic valve replacement technique does not lead to a higher incidence of postoperative complications and associated mortality.

[1]  E. Roselli,et al.  Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: Cleveland Clinic experience. , 2015, Annals of cardiothoracic surgery.

[2]  B. Stockman,et al.  Minimally invasive primary aortic valve surgery: the OLV Aalst experience. , 2015, Annals of cardiothoracic surgery.

[3]  M. Solinas,et al.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using right minithoracotomy is associated with better outcomes than ministernotomy. , 2014, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[4]  F. Casselman,et al.  Does a minimally invasive approach increase the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement? , 2014, The Journal of heart valve disease.

[5]  L. Cohn,et al.  A 16-Year Experience in Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement , 2014, Innovations.

[6]  M. Mack,et al.  ACQUIRED CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE Transcatheter ( TAVR ) versus surgical ( AVR ) aortic valve replacement : Occurrence , hazard , risk factors , and consequences of neurologic events in the PARTNER trial , 2012 .

[7]  T. Sundt,et al.  Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2009, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[8]  A. Darzi,et al.  Minimal access aortic valve replacement: is it worth it? , 2008, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[9]  F. Casselman,et al.  Should minimally invasive aortic valve replacement be restricted to primary interventions? , 2007, The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon.

[10]  L. Foubert,et al.  Minimally invasive aortic root replacement: a bridge too far? , 2007, The Journal of cardiovascular surgery.

[11]  F. Casselman,et al.  Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. , 2006, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[12]  M. Turina,et al.  Less invasive aortic valve surgery: rationale and technique. , 1999, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[13]  F. Mohr,et al.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: the Leipzig experience. , 2015, Annals of cardiothoracic surgery.

[14]  M. Borger,et al.  A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. , 2015, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[15]  F. Mohr,et al.  One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: a prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System. , 2013, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[16]  G. Lamas,et al.  Outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery versus median sternotomy in patients age 75 years or greater. , 2011, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[17]  A. Kumar,et al.  Aortic valve replacement through right thoracotomy. , 1993, Texas Heart Institute journal.