Minimally invasive valve surgery versus the conventional approach.

As a result of reports touting the effectiveness of minimally invasive valve operations, many cardiovascular surgeons and their patients are beginning to believe that smaller incisions are always better. According to its proponents, the minimally invasive approach results in less pain, a faster recovery, and a more satisfactory cosmetic result. Proponents also believe that the operation can be done safely and effectively at a lower cost than traditional surgical approaches. This may not be the case, however, and additional prospective studies must be done before firm conclusions can be drawn. For example, cardiopulmonary bypass, myocardial ischemia, and overall operative times are significantly longer (40% or more) for minimally invasive surgical procedures. Morbidity and mortality rates do not appear to be decreased, the length of hospital stay varies by only 1 or 2 days, and patients do not necessarily report less postoperative pain. When the conventional technique is used, the operation can be performed precisely and expeditiously. Should complications occur, the surgeon will have direct access to the heart. The cost of a conventional procedure should not be much more than that of a minimally invasive procedure, and in some instances it may even be less-particularly when the less invasive procedure significantly extends the operating room time or requires additional monitors or costly disposables.