Comparison of Two Minimally Invasive Techniques and Median Sternotomy in Aortic Valve Replacement

Background. Propensity score-matched analysis of the anterolateral minithoracotomy and the partial upper hemisternotomy vs the median sternotomy approach has not been reported to date for isolated aortic valve replacement. Methods. From 2005 to 2013, isolated aortic valve replacement was performed through a partial upper hemisternotomy in 315 patients (38.9%), through a median sternotomy in 328 patients (40.5%), and through an anterolateral minithoracotomy in 167 patients (20.6%). After propensity score-matched analysis, both minimally invasive techniques were independently compared with median sternotomy in 118 matched pairs. Results. In the anterolateral group, conversion to median sternotomy was significantly higher (17 [14.4%]), a second pump run (6 [5.1%]) and second cross clamp (12 [10.2%]) were significantly more often necessary, the median cross-clamp time (94 minutes; range, 43 to 231 minutes) and median perfusion time (141 minutes; range, 77 to 456 minutes) were significantly longer, and more groin median sternotomy group. No difference in perioperative results was identified between the partial upper hemisternotomy and the median sternotomy group. There was no significant difference in 1-year survival among the three groups, although a trend of better survival was observed in the partial upper hemisternotomy group. Conclusions. In minimally invasive isolated aortic valve replacement, the partial upper hemisternotomy shows similar perioperative outcome as the median sternotomy, whereas, the anterolateral minithoracotomy is associated with more perioperative complications. Therefore, only the partial upper hemisternotomy should be the preferred surgical technique for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in the daily routine for a broad spectrum of surgeons. (C) 2017 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons