HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Kit V Arom Robert W Emery Vibhu R Kshettry Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Arom, K. V Articles by Dubois, K. A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Arom, K. V Articles by Dubois, K. A

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999;16:S99-S102
© 1999 Elsevier Science NL

Evaluation of two new heart valve surgery techniques: partial sternotomy and port–access approaches

Cardiac Surgical Associates, P.A., 920 East 28th Street, Suite 420, Minneapolis, MN 55407 USA

^* Corresponding author. Tel.:+1-612-863-3982; fax: +1-612-863-3739.

Objectives: This review attempts to compare the port–access and partial sternotomy approaches of minimally invasive valve surgery. Methods: Our brief experiences of the two techniques are summarized with an attempt to compare safety, cost-effectiveness of the procedure and post discharge follow-up. One hundred and two patients undergoing the procedures between May 1996 and October 1998 were analyzed. There were 65 patients in the partial sternotomy (MIV) group and 37 patients in the port–access (PAV) group. With the exception of a higher incidence of COPD in the MIV patients, there was no significant difference in pre-operative variables between these two groups. Results: Total operating room time, surgery time and cross-clamp time were significantly increased in the PAV group. The operative mortality of patients with MIV was 3%(n=2) while the PAV group was 8%(n=3) (P=ns). More new atrial fibrillation was found in the MIV (26% versus 5%, P=0.009). Otherwise, there was no significant complications observed in either group. During the 4–6 week follow-up, of those who were employed, 76% of MIV and 69% of PAV patients had returned to work. Of the retired patients more than 95% of the patients in both groups had resumed their daily routine activity. Importantly, the study showed PAV patients returned to work about 4 weeks sooner than MIV patients. Conclusions: MIV approach is more ‘surgeon friendly' and can be carried out without increased intra-operative resource utilization. The PAV approach requires formal training and capital outlay for unique equipment, disposable and ancillary procedures. From a financial perspective, if the PAV technique is to become widely accepted intra-operative efficiencies must be maximized, post-operative fast-tract protocol must be utilized, financial expenditures for disposable equipment must decrease and requirement of ancillary procedures must be reduced.

Key Words: Partial sternotomy • Port-access