胸骨正中小切口在心脏瓣膜手术中的应用

目的探讨胸骨正中小切口在心脏瓣膜手术中应用的安全性和优点。方法在2000年8月至2006年10月间，50例风湿性心脏病患者，在常规体外循环下行瓣膜置换手术。其中二尖瓣置换术30例，主动脉瓣置换术20例。分别采用胸骨正中上段或下段部分胸骨劈开切口。切口长7田cm。结果本组无围术期死亡。术后恢复快，无严重并发症，术后纵隔引流量少，输血量少，无切口感染、裂开。手术效果满意。结论胸骨正中小切口可安全用于心脏瓣膜手术，具有创伤小、胸骨完整性破坏小、疗效好及美观效果。     

右胸部小切口矫治先天性心脏病641例分析

目的探讨右胸部小切口在先天性心脏病心内直视手术中的临床应用评价。方法自1995年12月至2008年1月，共经右胸部小切口行先天性心脏病手术641例，其中男性347例，女性294例，经右胸前外侧小切口587例，右腋下小切口54例。选择同期正中切口心内直视手术治疗的先天性心脏病患者350例为对照组。结果小切口组手术切口长度（13．7±4．7）cm，术后呼吸机辅助时间（4．2±2．2）h，术后引流量（175±95）ml，术后输血量（350±101）ml，术后切口感染及胸骨畸形发生率均明显少于对照组（P〈0．05）。小切口组的手术死亡率（0．47％）、手术时间及术后住院时间和对照组相比差异无统计学意义。结论右胸部小切口适用于简单的先心病手术，具有切口隐蔽美观、术后渗血少、切口感染发生率低、无胸骨畸形等优点，但必须要选择适合的病例，应用必要的措施改善显露和熟练的手术技巧，才能取得良好的手术结果。     

胸骨正中小切口与肋间侧切口瓣膜手术围术期的对比分析

目的:比较胸骨正中小切口与肋间侧切口瓣膜手术患者围术期的差异。方法:选取2016年1月至2018年8月,本中心行小切口瓣膜手术的患者。其中胸骨正中小切口患者共36例,平均年龄(45. 86±14. 83)岁,男性21例(58. 3%),主动脉瓣21例,二尖瓣15例。肋间侧切口患者54例,平均年龄(56. 77±14. 83)岁,男性31例(57. 4%),主动脉瓣30,二尖瓣24例。采用倾向性评分匹配出36对患者。结果:住院期1例患者侧切口主动脉瓣手术因主动脉根部出血死亡,但两组患者住院期间并发症发生率及死亡率差异无统计学意义。正中小切口组患者在手术阻断时间、体外循环时间、呼吸机使用时间、ICU时间显著短于侧切口组患者。术后住院时间及输血量无明显差异。结论:与肋间侧切口微创瓣膜手术相比,正中胸骨小切口患者有更好的受益,外科医生更容易掌握。     

经胸骨正中小切口行心脏瓣膜手术130例临床经验总结

目的　探讨经胸骨正中小切口行各种心脏瓣膜手术的适应证和手术方法 ,并报告 130例临床结果。　方法　 4例单纯主动脉瓣置换采用胸骨上段切口 ,其余手术均经胸骨下段切口。胸骨上段切口自胸骨上凹至第三肋间并向两侧横断胸骨 ,皮切口长度 5cm～ 7cm ;胸骨下段之皮切口自第三胸肋关节水平至剑突根部 ,长度 9cm～13cm ,自下而上纵行劈开胸骨至第二或第一肋间处向右侧横断。手术采用常规体外循环 ,共行二尖瓣置换 6 6例 ,主动脉瓣置换 2 0例 ,主动脉瓣及二尖瓣双瓣置换 32例 ,二尖瓣成形 11例 ,单纯三尖瓣成形 1例。同期行左心房血栓清除 2 2例及三尖瓣DeVega环缩 35例。　结果　无手术死亡。平均主动脉阻断、体外循环和手术时间分别为 6 3分± 2 9分、92分± 32分和 191分± 4 7分 ;平均气管插管 12小时± 5 2小时 ;平均住院 14天± 6 8天。术后胸液量平均 345ml± 197ml(5 0ml± 170 0ml) ,有 82例患者 (6 3% )未输血。　结论　正中经胸骨小切口行心脏瓣膜手术安全可靠 ,美观 (胸骨下段入路 ) ,创伤小 ,出血少 ,保留了胸廓的连续性 ,早期结果满意。     

三尖瓣置换术临床经验分析

目的：总结三尖瓣置换术的临床治疗经验，比较正中开胸与右侧小切口手术方式在三尖瓣置换中的近远期效果，以利提高手术疗效。方法：回顾性分析2007年6月至2018年6月在上海交通大学医学院附属新华医院心胸外科行三尖瓣置换术的28例患者临床资料。结果：本研究中男16例（57.1%），年龄在40.4±17.6岁。病因以三尖瓣下移畸形（Ebstein畸形）（15例，53.6%）为主。本组患者采用胸骨正中切口组20例（71.4%）、右胸小切口组8例（28.6%）；共置换21例机械瓣及7例生物瓣。与正中切口组相比，右胸小切口组患者平均年龄更大(P=0.036)、心脏手术史比例更高(P=0.014)、术中心脏不停跳比例更高(P＜0.001)、同期试行其他心内手术较少(P=0.025)；而两组在体外循环时间、瓣膜类型选择、术后呼吸机辅助呼吸时间及总住院时间等方面在切口部位的选择上无明显差异。住院期间3例死亡，无永久起搏器植入。术后随访2月～11年，1例早期死亡，1例患者术后6年因双叶机械瓣卡瓣再次置换，1例生物瓣中量反流，其余机械瓣或三尖瓣生物瓣功能良好。结论：严格掌握手术适应症，注意维护围术期右心功能，避免损伤传导束，三尖瓣置换术可获得良好的手术和近中期结果，右前外侧切口可作为经典正中胸骨切口的补充，尤其适用于既往心脏手术史患者；三尖瓣术后远期仍需严密随访。     

后外侧小切口人工股骨头置换治疗老年髋部骨折的临床疗效

目的探讨后外侧小切口人工股骨头置换治疗老年髋部骨折的临床应用。方法随机选取2009~2014年200例老年患者在本院进行治疗的髋部骨折行人工股骨头置换手术。将其随机分为两组,观察组行后外侧小切口入路,100例;对照组传统后外侧入路,100例。比较两组的切口长度、术中出血量、手术时间、输血量、术后下床时间、术后疼痛以及并发症。结果对两组患者出院后随访半年以上,观察组手术切口较对照组小,术中出血量、输血量、手术时间、术后下床时间、术后疼痛以及并发症均少于后者(P0.05)。结论小切口人工股骨头置换治疗老年髋部骨折具有创伤小、出血少、输血量小、手术时间短、术后下床早,疼痛轻、恢复快等优点。     

经胸骨下段正中小切口行心脏瓣膜手术

目的：探讨经胸骨下段正中小切口行各种心脏瓣膜手术的适应证和手术方法。 方法：３０例患者平均年龄４２．２±１０．１（１７～５８）岁。皮切口自第３胸肋关节水平至剑突根部,平均长度１１（９～１３）ｃｍ,自下而上纵行劈开胸骨至第２肋间处向右侧横断。手术于常规体外循环下进行,包括二尖瓣置换１９例,主动脉瓣置换３例,主动脉瓣及二尖瓣双瓣置换６例,二尖瓣Ｃａｒｐｅｎｔｉｅｒ环成形２例。７例同时行三尖瓣ＤｅＶｅｇａ环缩术。４例同时行左心房血栓清除。 结果：无手术死亡及并发症。平均主动脉阻断、体外循环和手术时间分别为５４．５±２４．９分、７９．２±２８．７分和１６０．９±４４．３分,术后呼吸机辅助１０．７±４．２小时,住院时间 １４．４±４．９天。术后胸液量２８２±１２５（５０～６３０）ｍｌ,有１６例患者（５３．３％）未输血。 结论：经胸骨下段正中小切口行心脏瓣膜手术安全可靠,美观,创伤小,出血少,保留了胸廓的连续性,早期结果满意。     

微创右腋下直切口与胸骨正中切口在心内直视手术中的对比

目的:比较右腋下直切口与胸部正中切口两种手术路径,在心内直视手术治疗常见先天性心脏病(先心病)的临床结果。方法:回顾性分析2012年5月至2014年2月,常见简单先心病房间隔缺损、室间隔膜部缺损、部分性心内膜垫缺损行微创右腋下直切口心内直视手术33例,选取既往相同疾病行传统胸部正中切口41例。对比两组患者手术时间、体外循环时间、输血量、术后引流量、术后呼吸机使用时间、术后住院时间及预后并进行总结。结果:两组患者均无死亡、出血致二次手术等重大并发症,在体外循环时间、术后呼吸机使用时间上两组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而在手术时间、输血量、术后引流量和术后住院时间方面微创右腋下直切口组均优于传统胸骨正中切口组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。术后随访6个月,两组患者超声心动图(UCG)均未发现残余分流、心包积液等并发症,传统胸部正中切口组4例患者出现鸡胸畸形,而微创切口组均恢复良好。结论:在常见先心病心内直视手术治疗中,微创右腋下直切口安全美观,并不增加术后并发症的发生,在术后恢复上显著优于传统胸骨正中切口。     

12年连续冠脉搭桥手术后无胸骨哆开的临床经验

目的：回顾性分析我院完成的2243例冠状动脉旁路移植术术后伤口并发症情况,总结冠脉搭桥正中手术切口术中及术后处理要点。方法：自1997年4月－2015年12月,排除围术期死亡患者,连续完成冠状动脉旁路移植手术2243例,年龄33－87岁,所有患者均以胸骨正中切口入路,心脏旁路手术完成后采用常规方法关胸,但结合患者情况确定个体化关胸策略。对比分析不同时段术后切口并发症包括胸骨哆开情况。结果：全组患者共发生术后胸骨哆开4例（0.54%）,均发生于2003年前（730例）,经二次固定后痊愈。自2003年后完成的1513例患者无一例发生胸骨哆开。其中单一手术组完成的1130例正中开胸冠脉搭桥手术,胸部切口局部脂肪液化15例,给予减张缝合局部酒精湿敷后干燥愈合。伤口胸骨皮下组织裂开8例（0.7％）,均经换药并二期缝合痊愈。3例患者因无菌性骨髓炎,给予胸骨坏死组织清除、胸大肌填埋成形术后痊愈。结论：心脏手术胸部正中切口并发症重在预防：开胸时注意切口保护、采用个体化胸骨固定技术、术后严格控制血糖水平、使用胸部固定带等综合措施的合理应用,可以使冠状动脉旁路移植手术后切口并发症发生率大大降低。     

右胸前外侧微创切口二尖瓣置换手术临床效果观察

目的 观察右胸前外侧微创切口二尖瓣置换手术的临床效果.方法 采用单中心回顾性队列研究方法,以2011年10月～2012年6月经右胸前外侧微创切口行二尖瓣置换手术的11例患者为微创组(A组),同期经标准胸骨正中切口行单纯二尖瓣置换手术的78例患者为传统组(B组).两组术者、年龄、性别、BMI、心功能NY-HA分级、LVEF、瓣膜病因、瓣膜病变等术前资料匹配.比较两组患者手术情况,LVEF、阻断时间、转流时间、术后引流量、输血量、术后并发症、疼痛度、切口长度等.结果 两组患者均无住院死亡,无低心排综合征、呼吸系统及中枢神经系统并发症.微刨组所有患者均未因手术问题扩大切口或改成正中切口;无术后出血再开胸.两组患者均在术后3个月复查心脏彩超,LV、LVEF差异无统计学意义,二尖瓣均未见瓣周漏.所有患者伤口均I/甲愈合.两组术后再次开胸止血、新发房颤、肺炎、脑血管意外、伤口愈合不良等术后并发症发生率相比P均＞0.05;微创组手术时间、体外循环时间、主动脉阻断时间较传统组长(P均＜0.05),术后ICU时间、机械通气时间、住院时间较传统组短(P均＜0.05),术后引流量、用血量较传统组少(P均＜0.05),切口长度较传统组短(P＜0.05).所有患者切口均未出现感染.结论 经右胸前外侧微创切口行微创瓣膜手术安全有效,有较好的美容效果,术后恢复情况较标准胸骨正中切口更快、更好.     

Our experience with surgical minimally invasive aortic valve replacement

BackgroundIn the context of the development of modern cardiac valve interventional methods (TAVI, TMVI, MitraClip), miniinvasivity in cardiac surgery is becoming increasingly important. An alternative approach to complete sternotomy in isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) is access from anterior thoracotomy or upper ministernotomy. In CKTCH Brno, is performed an isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) from the upper hemisternotomy (UHS) from 2013 onwards.MethodsBetween 2013 and 2016, isolated AVR was perfomed in our institution 666 patients. Full median sternotomy approach was used in 565 patients, minimally invasive approach (UHS) in 101 patients. In the ministernotomy group, classical biological or mechanical prosthesis was implanted in 55 patients; in 46 patients we used rapid deployment (sutureless) bioprosthesis Sorin Perceval S. In our study we compare the results of full sternotomy a hemisternotomy approach and also describe our surgical technique of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.ResultsWe registered gradual increase in minimally invasive AVR between 2013 and 2016 (9 patients in 2013, 59 patients in 2016). The combined hospitalization and 30-day mortality was 0.53% (3 patients) in the full sternotomy group and 0.99% (1 patient) in the ministernotomy group. In the most risky patients, we indicated ministernotomy with implantation of rapid deployment bioprosthesis (Euroscore II. 3,0 vs. 1,6 in the group of patients with full sternotomy AVR). As published, we confirmed longer aortic cross clamp time (AoX) and lenght of extracorporal circulation (ECC) in the patients with ministernotomy and implantation of sutured aortic prosthesis in comparison with full sternotomy AVR. Conversely, shorter AoX time and ECC time was observed in patients with rapid deployment prosthesis implantation from ministernotomy. We also recorded smaller postoperative blood loss in patients with ministernotomy apporach. The other monitored parameter were comparable.ConclusionIn this study we describe our technique and results of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in our institution. Based on our results, we evaluate this technique as safe and well reproducible.     

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a transverse sternotomy: a word of caution

OBJECTIVES: To compare aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a minimally invasive approach through a transverse sternotomy with the established approach of median sternotomy. DESIGN: Retrospective, case-control study. PATIENTS: Fourteen high risk patients (median age 78, Parsonnet score of 18%) who underwent AVR performed through a minimally invasive transverse sternotomy were compared with a historical group of patients matched for age, sex, and Parsonnet score who underwent AVR performed through a median sternotomy by the same surgeon. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cross clamp time, total bypass time, intensive care stay, postoperative in-hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: There were two deaths in the minimally invasive group and none in the control group (NS). The cross clamp and total bypass times were longer in the minimally invasive group (67 and 92 minutes v 46 and 66 minutes, p < 0.001). There was a higher incidence of re-exploration for bleeding (14% v 0%) and paravalvar leaks (21% v 0%) in the minimally invasive group but these differences were not significant. The minimally invasive group had a longer postoperative in-hospital stay (p = 0.025). The incidence of mortality or major morbidity was 43% (six of 14) in the minimally invasive group and 7% (one of 14) in the matched pairs (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: AVR can be performed through a transverse sternotomy but the operation takes longer and there is an unacceptably high incidence of morbidity and mortality.     

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery

Aortic valve disease is a prevalent disorder that affects approximately 2% of the general adult population. Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard treatment for symptomatic patients. This treatment has demonstrably proven to be both safe and effective. Over the last few decades, in an attempt to reduce surgical trauma, different minimally invasive approaches for aortic valve replacement have been developed and are now being increasingly utilized. A narrative review of the literature was carried out to describe the surgical techniques for minimally invasive aortic valve surgery and report the results from different experienced centers. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is associated with low perioperative morbidity, mortality and a low conversion rate to full sternotomy. Long-term survival appears to be at least comparable to that reported for conventional full sternotomy. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery, either with a partial upper sternotomy or a right anterior minithoracotomy provides early- and long-term benefits. Given these benefits, it may be considered the standard of care for isolated aortic valve disease.     

Midterm results of less invasive approach to ascending aorta and aortic root surgery

BackgroundMinimally invasive aortic valve (AV) surgery has become widely accepted alternative to standard sternotomy. Despite possible reduction in morbidity, this approach is not routinely performed for aortic surgery. Current report aimed to demonstrate early and mid-term outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic root- and ascending aorta-replacement with or without concomitant AV replacement (AVR).MethodsBetween 2011 and 2018, 167 selected low- and intermediate risk patients (mean age: 64.1±11.3; 70% men; EuroSCORE II 2.58±3.26) underwent minimally invasive aortic surgery. The “V” shaped partial upper sternotomy was performed through a 6-cm skin incision. Patients were divided into minimally invasive root reimplantation/replacement/remodelling (root RRR), supracoronary aorta replacements (SCAR) and SCAR+AVR. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival were used.ResultsMean follow-up was 3.1 year (max 7.7 years). Of 167 patients, 82 (49%) underwent SCAR; 44 (26%) SCAR + AVR. Forty-one patients (25%) underwent minimally invasive root RRR. Average aortic diameter was 6.00±0.46 cm. The cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp time were 152.0±46.8 and 101.8±36.8 minutes. There was one conversion to sternotomy. Median intensive care unit stay was 2.0 (IQR: 1.0–3.0) days. Thirty-day mortality was 1%. Within investigated follow-up, there was one late reoperation due to aortic valve thrombosis; late survival was estimated at 95% without differences between types of surgery: hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.36–1.81; P=0.61.ConclusionsMinimally invasive aortic surgery performed through “V” shaped partial upper sternotomy is feasible and safe in selected patients regardless of the extent of repair, from supracoronary aorta replacements to complex root surgery.     

389例先天性心脏病右外侧小切口剖胸心内直视手术

目的:总结经右胸外侧小切口体外循环下行先天性心脏病心内直视手术经验。方法:1996年11月至2011年12月,我科室应用右胸小切口完成各类先天性心脏病(先心病)的心内直视手术389例。年龄1.5～57岁,平均13.5岁。体质量7.6～68 kg,平均24.5 kg。手术切口后缘自右腋中线第3肋间处,向前下斜行达锁骨中线第6肋间处做8～12 cm弧形切口,第4肋间入胸。手术方式:房间隔缺损修补157例,室间隔缺损修补150例,部分房室隔缺损矫治8例;右心室流出道疏通术24例;法洛三联症矫治32例,法洛四联症矫治5例以及其他畸形矫治13例。随机选择同期常规手术(胸正中切口)患者100例作为对照。结果:研究组切口长度、手术时间及术后引流量都显著低于对照组;研究组术后呼吸机辅助时间明显低于对照组;术后监护时间各组间差异无统计学意义。研究组手术死亡4例(1.03%),2例死于术后脑栓塞,另外2例死于低心排出量综合征(低心排)。结论:右胸小切口手术入路,可安全有效地行常见先心病的矫治。该技术创伤小、恢复快、美观,并提高了患者的生活质量,值得进一步推广应用。     

Comparison of clinical outcomes and postoperative recovery between two open heart surgeries:minimally invasive right subaxillary vertical thoracomy and traditional median sternotomy

Objective:To compare the clinical outcomes of minimally invasive right subaxillary vertical thoracotomy and traditional median sternotomy through right atrium in treatment of common congenital heart diseases.Methods:Clinical data of 59 cases of common congenital heart diseases treated with minimally invasive right axillary vertical thoracotomv from May,2011 to February,2013 and 77 cases of same diseases with traditional median sternotomy in the past three years were retrospectively analyzed,including atrial septal defect,membranous ventricular septal defect and partial endocardial cushion defect.The results were compared from the two groups,including the time for operation and cardiopulmonary bypass,amount of blood transfusion,postoperative drainage,ventilation time,hospital stay,and prognosis.Results:No severe complications happened in both groups,like deaths or secondery surgery caused by bleeding.No significant differences were in CPB time and postoperative ventilator time between groups(P0.05),while for all of the operative time,the length of incision,postoperative drainage and hospital stay,minimally invasive right axillary vertical thoracotomy was superior to median sternotomy,with statistically significant differences(P0.05).In six-month lollowup after operation,no complications of residual deformity and pericardial effusion were found in both groups bv doing echocardiography,but mild pectus carinatum was found in X patients in the traditional median sternotomy group(traditional groupi.whereas patients in another group were well recovered.Conclusions:Minimally invasive right subaxillary vertical thoracotomv for common congenital heart diseases is as safe as traditional median sternotomy,without the increasing incidence of postoperative complications.Additionally,compared with traditional median sternotomy,minimally invasive right subaxillary vertical thoracotomv is better in the aspects of hidden incision,appearance,and postoperative recovery.     

Partial upper sternotomy for aortic valve replacement provides similar mid-term outcomes as the full sternotomy

BackgroundMinimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper partial sternotomy (MiniAVR) provides very good short-term results and delivers certain advantages in the postoperative course. There is limited data regarding the mid-term mortality and morbidity following this minimally invasive surgery.MethodsWe provide a retrospective analysis of the patients, undergoing MiniAVR versus full sternotomy (FS) for aortic valve replacement with biological prosthesis. As the primary combined end-point the combination of death, stroke, and rehospitalization within 3 years postoperatively was defined. Data have been collected from National Cardiac Surgery Registry and insurance companies.ResultsTwo hundred consecutive patients with aortic valve replacement (100 ministernotomy in MiniAVR group and 100 full sternotomy in FS group) with biological prosthesis were included in this study. Ministernotomy had longer cross-clamp and bypass times (median difference 6.5 min, P=0.005, and 8.5 min, P=0.002 respectively). Patients operated via upper partial sternotomy had a lower postoperative bleeding [300 mL (IQR, 290) vs. 365 mL (IQR, 207), P=0.031]. There was no difference in the 3-year mortality (14% vs. 11%, P=0.485). The mean number of readmission 3 years after surgery per capita was almost the same in both groups (1.65 vs. 1.60, P=0.836). Median time to the first readmission was longer in the MiniAVR group (difference 8.9 months). The incidence of combined end-point during 3 years postoperatively in both groups was not statistically different (P=0.148), as well as readmissions from cardio-vascular reasons (subhazard ratio 0.90, P=0.693).ConclusionsUpper partial sternotomy can be performed safely for aortic valve replacement, without increased risk of death, stroke or re-admission in 3 years postoperatively.     

Minimally invasive surgery for single valvular heart disease]

Two patients underwent valve surgery using the minimally invasive approach. A 51-year-old man underwent mitral valve repair for chronic mitral regurgitation due to prolapse of the posterior mitral leaflet. The left-half of his sternum was cut in "C" shape below the level of the second intercostal space, and all of the arterial or venous cannulas were inserted via this single access. A 37-year-old man underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic valve regurgitation due to infective endocarditis. Right upper partial sternotomy between the first and fourth intercostal space was selected for this aortic valve surgery. The median skin incisions were as small as 12 and 9 cm. Postoperative recovery was very smooth. Minimally invasive approach using selected partial sternotomy provides acceptable results with a good exposure, and is an alternative approach to valve surgery.     

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in left ventricular dysfunction

The safety and benefit of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in patients with left ventricular dysfunction has not been well investigated. We conducted a retrospective review of 140 patients with ejection fraction 相似文献   

Alternative Approach for Aortic Valve Replacement in Mediastinal Deviation after Right Lobectomy

A 71-year-old man on hemodialysis and with a history of right lobectomy was referred for aortic valve replacement. Chest computed tomography revealed counterclockwise rotation of the heart through its longitudinal axis.We approached the aortic valve through median sternotomy. Accordingly, we transected the sternum at the level of the 3rd intercostal space and extended the skin incision approximately 2 inches perpendicular to the midline. After partial transection of the sternum, 3 spreaders were placed: the 1st, in the upper sternum; the 2nd, in the lower sternum; and the 3rd, between the ribs. These devices yielded excellent exposure of the ascending aorta. In addition, the relatively central shift of the ascending aorta contributed to the exposure of the right atrium and the right upper pulmonary vein. Subsequently, aortic valve replacement was performed in the usual fashion, and the patient experienced no postoperative respiratory complications. Aortic valve surgery with T-shaped sternotomy and without thoracotomy is an alternative technique in a patient who has a secondary deviation after lobectomy.Key words: Aortic valve/surgery, cardiac surgical procedures, heart valve prosthesis implantation/methods, risk factors, treatment outcomeAlthough aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a well-known surgical procedure, AVR in a patient with secondary displacement has rarely been reported. Herein, we present an alternative surgical approach for surgery in the case of a patient with mediastinal deviation.