OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of less invasive aortic valve replacement to minimize surgical trauma and achieve a better postoperative quality of life. METHODS: Thirty-three patients had aortic valve replacement using a 4-6 cm small incision and partial sternotomy only. Partial sternotomy was performed proximal (16), S-shaped (14) or horizontal (3). Access for cardiopulmonary bypass was via sternotomy (24) or the right femoral vessels (9). Patient age was 58+/-13 years, 21 had aortic stenosis and 12 aortic incompetence. RESULTS: Surgical exposure was sufficient and allowed for uncomplicated AVR in all patients. Mechanical valves (20), conventional bioprostheses (3), stentless bioprostheses (9) or a homograft (1) were implanted. Crossclamp time was not prolonged in comparison to the conventional technique. Intensive care stay and hospital stay were 1 and 10 days, respectively. One patient had to be reoperated for paravalvular leakage, two patients (horizontal sternotomy) had sternal dehiscence. Postoperative pain was low in most patients. CONCLUSION: Less invasive aortic valve replacement is feasible with good functional results. The S-shaped sternotomy approach is advantageous whereas the horizontal sternotomy is no longer performed due to a high rate of instability. This new technique will be further evaluated in comparison to the conventional approach.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of less invasive aortic valve replacement to minimize surgical trauma and achieve a better postoperative quality of life. METHODS: Thirty-three patients had aortic valve replacement using a 4-6 cm small incision and partial sternotomy only. Partial sternotomy was performed proximal (16), S-shaped (14) or horizontal (3). Access for cardiopulmonary bypass was via sternotomy (24) or the right femoral vessels (9). Patient age was 58+/-13 years, 21 had aortic stenosis and 12 aortic incompetence. RESULTS: Surgical exposure was sufficient and allowed for uncomplicated AVR in all patients. Mechanical valves (20), conventional bioprostheses (3), stentless bioprostheses (9) or a homograft (1) were implanted. Crossclamp time was not prolonged in comparison to the conventional technique. Intensive care stay and hospital stay were 1 and 10 days, respectively. One patient had to be reoperated for paravalvular leakage, two patients (horizontal sternotomy) had sternal dehiscence. Postoperative pain was low in most patients. CONCLUSION: Less invasive aortic valve replacement is feasible with good functional results. The S-shaped sternotomy approach is advantageous whereas the horizontal sternotomy is no longer performed due to a high rate of instability. This new technique will be further evaluated in comparison to the conventional approach.