Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement reduces surgical trauma and, supposedly, postoperative pain, blood loss, and length of stay. A prospective, randomized study was designed to prove these theoretical advantages.

Methods: Forty patients undergoing isolated, elective aortic valve replacement were randomized into two equal groups. Patients in group M underwent aortic valve replacement through a ministernotomy (reversed L or reversed C). In group S, a median sternotomy was used. The anesthetic and surgical protocol was identical for both groups. Pain was evaluated on a daily basis. Pulmonary function tests were performed preoperatively and before hospital discharge in all patients.

Results: There were two deaths in each group. Cross-clamp time was longer in group M: 70 +/- 19 minutes versus 51 +/- 13 minutes in group S (p = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences between groups M and S in pump time (95 +/- 20 minutes versus 83 +/- 19 minutes), extubation time (9.9 hours in both groups), chest drainage (479 +/- 274 mL/L 24 hours versus 355 +/- 159 mL/24 hours), transfusion requirements (27% in both groups), pain evaluation (1.34 +/- 1.3 versus 2.15 +/- 1.5), length of stay (6.2 +/- 2.3 days versus 6.3 +/- 2.5 days), and cosmetic appraisal. Forced vital capacity decreased 26% from preoperative reference values in group M and 33% in group S (p = not significant). Forced expiratory volume in 1 second decreased 22% and 35%, respectively (p = not significant).

Conclusions: This study has failed to prove the theoretical advantages of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. With this technique, cross-clamp time is longer than with a median sternotomy.