W Ehrlich1, W Skwara, W Klövekorn, M Roth, E P Bauer. 1. Division for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Kerckhoff-Clinic Foundation, Benekestrasse 2-8, D-61231, Bad Nauheim, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Access to aortic valve can be performed through small incisions. However, a considerable advantage of this approach has not been proven by randomized studies so far. We wanted to elucidate the opinion of patients when they are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive approach prior to operation. METHODS: This prospective study was performed with 27 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. These patients were informed prior to operation by the same resident concerning objective data. A photograph was shown illustrating a patient with postoperative wound after a standard- and a mini-incision, respectively. After the interview the patient could decide between full and partial sternotomy. RESULTS: After the interview 21/27 (78%) patients preferred to have a full sternotomy (group F) and 6/27 (22%) patients (group P) decided to have a partial sternotomy. Comments of group F: surgeon should have best exposure (n=15); cosmetics aspects unimportant (n=14); operation time as short as possible (n=7). Group P: cosmetic aspects important (n=6). Significant differences between groups (group F vs. group P): age (years), 69.1+/-1.5 vs. 49.2+/-7.3 (P=0.024); operation time (min), 142+/-7 vs. 189+/-15 (P=0.002); CK (IU/l), 111+/-11 vs. 374+/-114 (P=0.0007); CKMB (IU/l), 17+/-2 vs. 45+/-17 (P=0.006); ICU-stay (days), 2.6+/-0.2 vs. 3.2+/-0.2 (P=0.044). Pericardial effusion requiring drainage was observed in two patients of group P. One patient of group P suffered myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: When patients are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimal invasive aortic valve surgery only a smaller number decides to have a mini incision. The patients preferring short incisions are significantly younger since cosmetic aspects are more important. Longer duration of operation may be due to longer hemostasis based on limited exposure. Air bubbles due to inadequate de-airing might be responsible for higher CK and CK-MB levels in group P.
OBJECTIVE: Access to aortic valve can be performed through small incisions. However, a considerable advantage of this approach has not been proven by randomized studies so far. We wanted to elucidate the opinion of patients when they are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive approach prior to operation. METHODS: This prospective study was performed with 27 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. These patients were informed prior to operation by the same resident concerning objective data. A photograph was shown illustrating a patient with postoperative wound after a standard- and a mini-incision, respectively. After the interview the patient could decide between full and partial sternotomy. RESULTS: After the interview 21/27 (78%) patients preferred to have a full sternotomy (group F) and 6/27 (22%) patients (group P) decided to have a partial sternotomy. Comments of group F: surgeon should have best exposure (n=15); cosmetics aspects unimportant (n=14); operation time as short as possible (n=7). Group P: cosmetic aspects important (n=6). Significant differences between groups (group F vs. group P): age (years), 69.1+/-1.5 vs. 49.2+/-7.3 (P=0.024); operation time (min), 142+/-7 vs. 189+/-15 (P=0.002); CK (IU/l), 111+/-11 vs. 374+/-114 (P=0.0007); CKMB (IU/l), 17+/-2 vs. 45+/-17 (P=0.006); ICU-stay (days), 2.6+/-0.2 vs. 3.2+/-0.2 (P=0.044). Pericardial effusion requiring drainage was observed in two patients of group P. One patient of group P suffered myocardial infarction. CONCLUSION: When patients are informed objectively about advantages and disadvantages of minimal invasive aortic valve surgery only a smaller number decides to have a mini incision. The patients preferring short incisions are significantly younger since cosmetic aspects are more important. Longer duration of operation may be due to longer hemostasis based on limited exposure. Air bubbles due to inadequate de-airing might be responsible for higher CK and CK-MB levels in group P.