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): Matthias Roth Erwin P. Bauer Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ehrlich, W. Articles by Bauer, E. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ehrlich, W. Articles by Bauer, E. P.

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;17:714-717
© 2000 Elsevier Science NL

Do patients want minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?

Division for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Kerckhoff-Clinic Foundation, Benekestrasse 2–8, D-61231 Bad Nauheim, Germany

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-6032-996-2507; fax: +49-6032-996-2567
e-mail: epb53{at}yahoo.com

Objective: Access to aortic valve can be performed through small incisions. However, a considerable advantage of this approach has not been proven by randomized studies so far. We wanted to elucidate the opinion of patients when they are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive approach prior to operation. Methods: This prospective study was performed with 27 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. These patients were informed prior to operation by the same resident concerning objective data. A photograph was shown illustrating a patient with postoperative wound after a standard- and a mini-incision, respectively. After the interview the patient could decide between full and partial sternotomy. Results: After the interview 21/27 (78%) patients preferred to have a full sternotomy (group F) and 6/27 (22%) patients (group P) decided to have a partial sternotomy. Comments of group F: surgeon should have best exposure (n=15); cosmetics aspects unimportant (n=14); operation time as short as possible (n=7). Group P: cosmetic aspects important (n=6). Significant differences between groups (group F vs. group P): age (years), 69.1±1.5 vs. 49.2±7.3 (P=0.024); operation time (min), 142±7 vs. 189±15 (P=0.002); CK (IU/l), 111±11 vs. 374±114 (P=0.0007); CKMB (IU/l), 17±2 vs. 45±17 (P=0.006); ICU-stay (days), 2.6±0.2 vs. 3.2±0.2 (P=0.044). Pericardial effusion requiring drainage was observed in two patients of group P. One patient of group P suffered myocardial infarction. Conclusion: When patients are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimal invasive aortic valve surgery only a smaller number decides to have a mini incision. The patients preferring short incisions are significantly younger since cosmetic aspects are more important. Longer duration of operation may be due to longer hemostasis based on limited exposure. Air bubbles due to inadequate de-airing might be responsible for higher CK and CK-MB levels in group P.

Key Words: Minimally invasive • Aortic valve • Surgery

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. L. Brown, S. H. McKellar, T. M. Sundt, and H. V. Schaff Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2009; 137(3): 670 - 679.e5. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Murtuza, J. R. Pepper, R. DeL Stanbridge, C. Jones, C. Rao, A. Darzi, and T. Athanasiou Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement: Is It Worth It? Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2008; 85(3): 1121 - 1131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Glauber, A. Farneti, M. Solinas, and J. Karimov Aortic valve replacement through a right minithoracotomy MMCTS, November 10, 2006; 2006(1110): 1826. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Bakir, F. P. Casselman, F. Wellens, H. Jeanmart, R. De Geest, I. Degrieck, F. Van Praet, Y. Vermeulen, and H. Vanermen Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2006; 81(5): 1599 - 1604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Doll, M. A. Borger, J. Hain, J. Bucerius, T. Walther, J. F. Gummert, and F. W. Mohr Minimal access aortic valve replacement: effects on morbidity and resource utilization Ann. Thorac. Surg., October 1, 2002; 74(4): S1318 - 1322. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Aris Invited commentary Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2002; 73(2): 465 - 466. [Full Text] [PDF]