The analysis of anterolateral minithoracotomy versus partial upper hemisternotomy in minimally invasive dual mitral and aortic valve replacement / 中华胸心血管外科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective To compare the results of invasive dual mitral and aortic valve replacement( DVR) through an-terolateral minithoracotomy( RT) and partial upper hemistemotomy( PS) approaches. Methods This was a retrospective, ob-servational, cohort study of collected data on 30 patients undergoing dual mitral and aortic valve replacement between July 2009 and March 2018 at Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital,Fudan University. There were 10 male and 20 female patients,aging from 15 to 65 years with a mean age of(45. 67 ± 12. 25) years. Of these, 8 were performed through right RT and 22 through PS. SPSS 23. 0 was used to analysis gender, age, left ventricle ejection fraction, New York Heart Associa-tion class, perioperative complications,total operative duration, cardiopulmonary bypass duration, aortic cross clamp time, ICU monitoring time and postoperative hospital stay of the two groups. Results Both groups successfully completed minimally inva-sive double-valve replacement surgery, without middle-opening thoracic surgery. Compared with PS group, patients in the RT grouphadlongeraorticcrossclamptime[(109.00±27.80)minvs.(81.23±14.10)min,P=0.026],cardiopulmonaryby-passduration[(152.13±27.15)minvs.(129.55±26.36)min,P=0.049]andtotaloperativeduration[(4.81±0.77)h vs. (4.15 ±0.44)h, P=0.006]. In addition, the ICU monitoring time and postoperative hospital stay of patients in RT group wereshorterthanPSgroup[(24.63±11.55)hvs.(30.55±13.21)h;(5.50±0.93)dayvs.(6.59±3.88)day] butthere were no statistically significant(P=0. 273;P=0. 442). Conclusion Minimally invasive dual mitral and aortic valve replace-ment via RT and PS are both safe and effective. The incision of RT group is more concealed than the PS group as well as retai-ning sternal integrity. However, the total operative duration, cardiopulmonary bypass duration and aortic cross clamp time were longer than PS group and the requirements of the surgeon are higher. The PS group has a shorter operation time and does not change the habit of the surgeon. It is more suitable for the heart center that proposed to launch the minimally invasive dual mi-tral and aortic valve replacement.