Mitral surgery after prior cardiac operation: port-access versus sternotomy or thoracotomy

BACKGROUND: In reoperation for mitral valve disease, minimally invasive Port-Access (PORT) is a new alternative to standard median sternotomy (STER) or right thoracotomy (THOR); yet, the results of PORT in this setting have not been defined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of minimally invasive thoracotomy in reoperation for mitral valve disease. METHODS: Retrospective results are reported for three consecutive series of patients undergoing reoperation for mitral disease using either PORT (n = 60, 1996 to 2001), THOR (n = 37, 1985 to 1997), or STER (n = 155, 1985 to 1997). RESULTS: Red cell transfusion was 3 +/- 4, 14 +/- 13, and 12 +/- 12 units for PORT, THOR, and STER, respectively. Chest tube output was 352 +/- 361, 2048 +/- 3166, and 1683 +/- 3939 mL, respectively. Cardiopulmonary bypass times for these groups were 208 +/- 76 vs. 158 +/- 56 vs. 157 +/- 53 minutes. Thirty-day mortality was 0/60 (0%), 8/37 (22%), and 21/155 (14%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This early clinical experience suggests that PORT is an acceptable alternative to THOR or STERN in reoperation for mitral valve disease, with potential advantages of avoiding redo sternotomy and reducing the surgical incision. However, these benefits may come at the expense of longer cardiopulmonary bypass times.     

Mitral valve repair robotic versus sternotomy.

OBJECTIVE: Robotically assisted mitral valve repair were compared with sternotomy mitral valve repair. Prospectively we evaluated safety and efficacy in performing simple mitral repairs. METHODS: Between February 2004 and September 2005, 25 patients with posterior leaflet insufficiency underwent mitral valve repair using the da Vinci system. They were matched retrospectively with 25 patients who underwent the same repair via a median sternotomy. The minimal invasive repairs were performed with peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass, transthoracic aortic cross-clamp, and antegrade cardioplegia. Repair was performed with two ports and a 4-cm intercostals lateral incision in the right chest for access. All patients had posterior leaflet resection and placement of a ring annuloplasty. RESULTS: All patients had successful valve repairs. There were no deaths. There was one conversion to an extended thoracotomy in the minimal invasive group due to a bleeder on the left atrial appendage. Overall mean study times showed a longer aortic cross-clamp (range, 96.1 min vs 69.6 min) and cardiopulmonary bypass (range, 122.1 min vs 85.7 min) for the minimal invasive group. Length of stay was less for the minimal group (7 days vs 9 days). At postoperative echocardiography two patients in both group developed 2+ mitral regurgitations. All other patients had a competent mitral valve repair with no insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Simple mitral valve repair can be successfully performed with the da Vinci robotic system. This approach is as safe as a sternotomy and long-term follow-up is needed to determine the durability of the mini invasive repair.     

胸腔镜辅助与前正中开胸二尖瓣置换术的对比研究

目的 比较胸腔镜辅助与前正中开胸两种方式进行二尖瓣置换术的治疗效果,探讨胸腔镜辅助二尖瓣置换术的可行性.方法 2003年10月至2011年10月,共完成胸腔镜辅助二尖瓣置换术72例,同期完成前正中开胸二尖瓣置换74例,对两组患者的体外循环时间、升主动脉阻断时间、术后呼吸机辅助时间、胸腔引流液量、术后ICU停留时间及术后住院时间等资料进行统计学分析比较.结果 胸腔镜组体外循环时间及升主动脉阻断时间较前正中开胸时间长,且差异具有统计学意义.但两组患者的术后呼吸机辅助时间和术后ICU停留时间差异无统计学意义.胸腔镜组的胸腔引流液量少于前正中开胸组,差异具有统计学意义.结论 只要严格把握好适应证,胸腔镜辅助二尖瓣置换术可以作为常规手术开展.     

Partial median "I" sternotomy: minimally invasive alternate approach for aortic valve replacement

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using the inversed L-like partial upper sternotomy has evolved during the last 10 years. It is performed with excellent results with regard to sternal stability and cosmesis. However, the lateral incision may result in sternal overriding, instability, or fracture. We present an alternate minimally invasive approach to aortic valve replacement. We performed a partial median "I" sternotomy in 30 consecutive patients: After a 6- to 8-cm skin incision, the sternum was incised from the jugulum downward to the corpus, ending at the level of the fourth or fifth intercostal space. No lateral incision of the sternum was performed. The access to the heart and aorta was excellent. During the postoperative course and during follow-up, clinical examination revealed sternal stability and normal wound healing in all patients. These results show that the partial median I sternotomy can be performed safely and provides excellent clinical and cosmetic results.     

Mitral valve surgery for chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation

BACKGROUND: Early and midterm clinical and echocardiographic results after mitral valve (MV) surgery for chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation were investigated to evaluate the validity of the criteria for repair or replacement applied by us. METHODS: From 1988 to 2002, 102 patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation underwent MV surgery (82 repairs and 20 replacements). End-systolic distance between the coaptation point of mitral leaflets and the plane of mitral annulus was the key factor that allowed either repair (10 mm). Patients who had MV replacement showed higher New York Heart Association class (3.2 +/- 0.5 versus 3.4 +/- 0.5; p = 0.016), lower preoperative ejection fraction (0.33 +/- 0.9 versus 0.38 +/- 0.12; p = 0.034), and higher end-diastolic volume (161 +/- 69 mL versus 109 +/- 35 mL; p < 0.001) compared with repair. Mitral regurgitation was 3.2 +/- 0.7 in both groups. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was 3.9% (2.4% MV repair versus 10.0% MV replacement; not significant). During the follow-up 26 patients died. Of the 72 survivors, 55 (76.3%) were in New York Heart Association classes I and II. Five-year survival was 75.6% +/- 4.7% in MV repair and 66.0% +/- 10.5% in MV replacement (not significant). Survival in New York Heart Association classes I and II was 58.9% +/- 5.4% in MV repair and 40.0% +/- 11.0% in MV replacement (not significant). Cox analysis identified preoperative New York Heart Association class, ejection fraction, end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and congestive heart failure as risk factors common to both events. In 46 patients, late echocardiograms showed no volume or ejection fraction modifications. In patients who underwent MV repair, 50% had no or mild mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Correction of chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation through either repair or replacement provides a good 5-year survival rate, with more than 75% of the survivors in New York Heart Association classes I and II.     

Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study

Background. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement reduces surgical trauma and, supposedly, postoperative pain, blood loss, and length of stay. A prospective, randomized study was designed to prove these theoretical advantages.

Methods. Forty patients undergoing isolated, elective aortic valve replacement were randomized into two equal groups. Patients in group M underwent aortic valve replacement through a ministernotomy (reversed or reversed ). In group S, a median sternotomy was used. The anesthetic and surgical protocol was identical for both groups. Pain was evaluated on a daily basis. Pulmonary function tests were performed preoperatively and before hospital discharge in all patients.

Results. There were two deaths in each group. Cross-clamp time was longer in group M: 70 ± 19 minutes versus 51 ± 13 minutes in group S (p = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences between groups M and S in pump time (95 ± 20 minutes versus 83 ± 19 minutes), extubation time (9.9 hours in both groups), chest drainage (479 ± 274 mL/ 24 hours versus 355 ± 159 mL/ 24 hours), transfusion requirements (27% in both groups), pain evaluation (1.34 ± 1.3 versus 2.15 ± 1.5), length of stay (6.2 ± 2.3 days versus 6.3 ± 2.5 days), and cosmetic appraisal. Forced vital capacity decreased 26% from preoperative reference values in group M and 33% in group S (p = not significant). Forced expiratory volume in 1 second decreased 22% and 35%, respectively (p = not significant).

Conclusions. This study has failed to prove the theoretical advantages of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. With this technique, cross-clamp time is longer than with a median sternotomy.