Literature DB >> 12625490

Chest pain after partial upper versus complete sternotomy for aortic valve surgery.

Sofie Candaele1, Paul Herijgers, Roland Demeyere, Willem Flameng, Georges Evers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate pain and pulmonary function after partial upper versus complete sternotomy for aortic valve surgery. METHODS AND
RESULTS: In a prospective study of 31 adult patients, 15 individuals underwent aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy, and 16 patients were operated on by means of a full median sternotomy. Chest pain was assessed at rest, after spirometry and coughing, using the visual analogue scale and a structured questionnaire. Forced expiratory volume at I second and forced vital capacity were measured by a hand-held spirometer. Minimal-access patients had less postoperative pain and improved pulmonary function in comparison with conventional aortic valve replacement. After partial upper sternotomy, the postoperative chest pain was confined to the sternal area, while after standard sternotomy a more generalized chest pain occurred. Differences in pain scores could still be demonstrated one month after discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that partial upper sternotomy improves pulmonary function and reduces pain in comparison with standard full sternotomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12625490     DOI: 10.2143/AC.58.1.2005254

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Cardiol        ISSN: 0001-5385            Impact factor:   1.718


  6 in total

1.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: late conversion to full sternotomy doubles operative time.

Authors:  Signe Foghsgaard; Thomas Andersen Schmidt; Henrik K Kjaergard
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2009

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

Authors:  Ravi K Ghanta; Damien J Lapar; John A Kern; Irving L Kron; Alan M Speir; Edwin Fonner; Mohammed Quader; Gorav Ailawadi
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 5.209

3.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy: the Brigham and Women's Hospital experience.

Authors:  Robert C Neely; Marko T Boskovski; Igor Gosev; Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Siobhan McGurk; Marzia Leacche; Lawrence H Cohn
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-01

4.  Mini-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement reduces the length of stay in the cardiac intensive care unit: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  E Khoshbin; S Prayaga; J Kinsella; F W H Sutherland
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  What are the benefits of a minimally invasive approach in frail octogenarian patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?

Authors:  Yusuf S Abdullahi; Leonidas V Athanasopoulos; Marco Moscarelli; Roberto P Casula; Giuseppe Speziale; Khalil Fattouch; Sebastiano Castrovinci; Thanos Athanasiou
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.327

6.  Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement - pros and cons of keyhole aortic surgery.

Authors:  Marcin Kaczmarczyk; Przemysław Szałański; Michał Zembala; Krzysztof Filipiak; Wojciech Karolak; Jacek Wojarski; Marcin Garbacz; Aleksandra Kaczmarczyk; Anna Kwiecień; Marian Zembala
Journal:  Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol       Date:  2015-06-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.