J-shaped upper mini-sternotomy versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: A comparative study

3Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: This study aims to compare the characteristics between patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) through a J-shaped upper mini-sternotomy (UMS) and patients who underwent full sternotomy (FS) in the basis of clinical care and hospital outcomes. Methods: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was conducted on adult patients who were subjected to AVR by UMS from 2014 to 2017, compared with a historical control of patients who had undergone UMS by FS from 2011 to 2014. Patients, who received combined valve replacement or aortic surgery, as well as heart valve reinterventions due to endocarditis, were excluded. Sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, hospital and intensive care stay, blood transfusions, complications, and mortality of both procedures were compared. Results: There were 57 patients under UMS and 99 patients under FS included in this study. The median age was 67 years, and 56.77% of the patients were male. No differences were observed in the past medical history and the type of valve implanted between the groups. During surgery, patients under UMS received a lower percentage of red blood cell and platelet transfusions compared with FS. However, UMS had a higher percentage of cryoprecipitate transfusion. Intensive care stay was shorter in UMS compared with FS (three days; interquartile range [IQR], 2-4; and four days; IQR, 2-6, respectively) without differences in overall hospital stay, postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality. Conclusions: The J-shaped upper mini-sternotomy is a feasible surgical technique that does not increase inhospital or 30-day mortality, neither hospital stay nor infectious complications.

References Powered by Scopus

Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair

480Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement: A propensity score analysis

142Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: A real-world multi-institutional analysis

86Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Aortic Valve Replacement: Is Minimally Invasive Really Better? A Contemporary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

10Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Mini-sternotomy versus full sternotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement: A single-center experience

1Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Borrero, Á., Samboni, T., Prado, N., Carrillo-Gómez, D. C., Giraldo-González, G. C., Flórez-Elvira, L., & Cadavid-Alvear, E. (2020). J-shaped upper mini-sternotomy versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: A comparative study. Heart Surgery Forum, 23(4), E411–E415. https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.2815

Readers over time

‘21‘22‘23‘2402468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

100%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 4

57%

Nursing and Health Professions 3

43%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0