OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the combined superior-transseptal approach for mitral valve surgery. METHODS: We compared the preoperative status, operative factors, and postoperative outcomes among patients having mitral valve operations with three atrial incisions. The incisions were transseptal (n = 40), combined superior-transseptal (n = 33), and left atrial (n = 22). RESULTS: The cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp time were significantly higher in the superior-transseptal group compared with the transseptal group. No significant difference in blood loss was found among the three groups. The incidence of sinus node dysfunction in the early postoperative period was more common in the superior-transseptal group. The maintenance of sinus rhythm at the mid-term follow-up in patients with preoperative sinus rhythm was not significantly different among the three groups. On the other hand, a few patients in the superior-transseptal and transseptal groups with the preoperative sinus rhythm developed sick sinus syndrome requiring permanent pacemaker implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the combined superior-transseptal approach was safe and effective, and was not associated with a higher incidence of rhythm disturbance. Because this approach provided an optimal exposure of the mitral valve and subvalvular apparatus, it has been positively adopted for use in patients undergoing complex and difficult mitral valve operation. To use this approach for patients undergoing mitral valve surgery through this approach, however, further follow-up study of the sinus node function is necessary.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the combined superior-transseptal approach for mitral valve surgery. METHODS: We compared the preoperative status, operative factors, and postoperative outcomes among patients having mitral valve operations with three atrial incisions. The incisions were transseptal (n = 40), combined superior-transseptal (n = 33), and left atrial (n = 22). RESULTS: The cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp time were significantly higher in the superior-transseptal group compared with the transseptal group. No significant difference in blood loss was found among the three groups. The incidence of sinus node dysfunction in the early postoperative period was more common in the superior-transseptal group. The maintenance of sinus rhythm at the mid-term follow-up in patients with preoperative sinus rhythm was not significantly different among the three groups. On the other hand, a few patients in the superior-transseptal and transseptal groups with the preoperative sinus rhythm developed sick sinus syndrome requiring permanent pacemaker implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the combined superior-transseptal approach was safe and effective, and was not associated with a higher incidence of rhythm disturbance. Because this approach provided an optimal exposure of the mitral valve and subvalvular apparatus, it has been positively adopted for use in patients undergoing complex and difficult mitral valve operation. To use this approach for patients undergoing mitral valve surgery through this approach, however, further follow-up study of the sinus node function is necessary.