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 Citation Map 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): Eugene A Grossi Peter K Zakow Greg Ribakove Klaus Kallenbach F Gregory Baumann Stephen B Colvin Aubrey C Galloway Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Grossi, E. A Articles by Galloway, A. C Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Grossi, E. A Articles by Galloway, A. C

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999;16:S39-S42
© 1999 Elsevier Science NL

Comparison of post-operative pain, stress response, and quality of life in port access vs. standard sternotomy coronary bypass patients

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA

^* Corresponding author. New York University Medical Center, 530 First Ave., Suite 9V, New York, NY 10016, USA. Tel.: +1-212-263-7452; fax: +1-212-263-5534 (Email: grossi{at}cv.med.nyu.edu).

Objective: Although it has been postulated that minimally invasive cardiac surgery using the port access method would reduce operative stress and postoperative pain and accelerate postoperative recovery to a good quality of life, few data are currently available to document this intuitively appealing claim. Therefore, this study was designed to examine differences in stress response, postoperative pain, rapidity of recovery, and quality of life after port access (PA) isolated coronary artery bypass surgery compared with standard sternotomy (STD) isolated coronary bypass surgery. Methods: Fourteen PA and 15 STD coronary bypass patients were studied postoperatively for pain score, FEV, catecholamine and cortisol levels, resumption of activity, and Duke Activity Scale ratings. The surgical approach was based on the surgeon's preference. Although the PA patients were younger, there were no other differences between the groups in gender or preoperative risk factors. Results: There were no operative deaths and no differences between the groups in perioperative complications. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed lower pain scale ratings over the first 4 postoperative weeks in the PA group (P<0.001). The PA patients also had less muscle soreness, shortness of breath, fatigue, and poor appetite at 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks (P<0.05), better FEV at 1 day (1.59 vs. 0.97 l/s; P<0.02) and 3 days (2.20 vs. 1.49 l/s; P<0.03), and lower norepinephrine levels at days 1, 2, and 3 (P=0.005). The Duke Activity Scale questionnaire results demonstrated that more PA patients were able to walk 1–2 blocks at 1 week, climb stairs at 1 and 2 weeks, perform light or moderate housework at 1 and 2 weeks, and engage in moderate recreational activities and perform heavy housework at 4 and 8 weeks (P<0.05). Conclusions: These results show that compared with STD coronary bypass patients PA patients enjoyed significant postoperative physiologic and quality of life advantages with less pain, less early stress response, better pulmonary function, and superior Duke Activity scores during the first 2 postoperative months.

Key Words: Minimally invasive • Pain • Coronary bypass • Quality of life

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Modi, A. Hassan, and W. R. Chitwood Jr. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., November 1, 2008; 34(5): 943 - 952. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Seeburger, M. A. Borger, V. Falk, T. Kuntze, M. Czesla, T. Walther, N. Doll, and F. W. Mohr Minimal invasive mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation: results of 1339 consecutive patients Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., October 1, 2008; 34(4): 760 - 765. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. Sharony, E. A. Grossi, P. C. Saunders, C. F. Schwartz, G. H. Ribakove, A. T. Culliford, P. Ursomanno, F. G. Baumann, A. C. Galloway, and S. B. Colvin Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery in the Elderly: A Case-Control Study Circulation, September 9, 2003; 108(90101): II-43 - 47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Dogan, K. Graubitz, T. Aybek, M. F. Khan, P. Kessler, A. Moritz, and G. Wimmer-Greinecker How safe is the port access technique in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting? Ann. Thorac. Surg., November 1, 2002; 74(5): 1537 - 1543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Grossi, A. LaPietra, G. H. Ribakove, J. Delianides, R. Esposito, A. T. Culliford, C. C. Derivaux, R. M. Applebaum, I. Kronzon, B. M. Steinberg, et al. Minimally invasive versus sternotomy approaches for mitral reconstruction: Comparison of intermediate-term results J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2001; 121(4): 708 - 713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]