Comparison of Mitral Valve Repair between a Minimally Invasive Approach and a Conventional Sternotomy Approach.
- Author:
Won chul CHO
1
;
Jae Won LEE
;
Hyoung Gon JE
;
Jeong Won KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine. jwlee@amc.seoul.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Mitral valve, repair;
Mitral valve insufficiency;
Minimally invasive surgery
- MeSH:
Follow-Up Studies;
Hospital Mortality;
Humans;
Korea;
Length of Stay;
Mitral Valve Insufficiency;
Mitral Valve*;
Mortality;
Sternotomy*;
Surgical Procedures, Minimally Invasive;
Thoracic Surgery;
Thoracotomy
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2007;40(12):825-830
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery appears to offer certain advantages such as earlier postoperative recovery and a greater cosmetic effect than that achieved through conventional sternotomy. However, this approach has not yet been widely adopted in Korea to replace complex open heart surgery such as mitral valve reconstruction. This study compared the results of robot assisted minimally invasive mitral valve repair with those results of conventional sternotomy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: From December 1993 to December 2005, 520 consecutive patients underwent mitral valve reconstruction for mitral regurgitation in our institution. These patients were subdivided according to those whose surgery used the conventional sternotomy approach (Group S, n=432) and those who underwent minimally invasive right anterior thoracotomy (Group M, n=88); we then compared the clinical results of both groups. When we performed minimally invasive right thoracotomy, we used a robot (AESOP 3000) and made an incision less than 5 cm. RESULT: Our study patients in both groups were similar for their age, gender and preoperative ejection fraction. There were two hospital mortalities in group S. but there was no mortality in the group M patients. Significant reductions in the ICU stay and the postoperative hospital stay were observed in the group M patients compared with the group S patients. However, both the bypass time and the aortic cross-clamp time were significantly longer in the group M patients. In spite of the confined incision in the group M patients, there were no limitations on the mitral valve repair techniques. There was a similar frequency of postoperative significant residual mitral regurgitation in both groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, the minimally invasive mitral valve repair showed comparable early results with the conventional sternotomy patients. We will now need long-term follow-up of these patients who underwent minimally invasive mitral valve repair, but we anticipate that based on the results of this study, we will begin to routinely perform minimally invasive cardiac surgery as our primary approach for mitral valve reconstruction.
