Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 66(04): 295-300
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598196
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Minimally Invasive Aortic Root Replacement with Valved Conduits through Partial Upper Sternotomy

Julia Hillebrand
1   Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Universitatsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany
,
Mosab Alshakaki
2   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Universitatsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany
,
Sven Martens
2   Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Universitatsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany
,
Mirela Scherer
1   Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Universitatsklinikum Münster, Münster, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

30 November 2016

28 December 2016

Publication Date:
15 February 2017 (online)

Abstract

Background Minimally invasive surgical access through limited sternotomy reduces trauma and morbidity in cardiosurgical patients. However, until now, it is not the standard access for aortic root replacement. This study details our clinic's experience with minimally invasive implantation of valved conduits through partial upper sternotomy and the comparison to conventional full median sternotomy.

Methods Between January 2012 and March 2016, a total of 187 patients underwent aortic root replacement with valved conduits in our department. Minimally invasive access through partial upper sternotomy (group A) was performed in 33 patients (9 female, 24 male; mean age: 55.68 ± 13.24 years). Four of these patients received concomitant mitral and tricuspid valve interventions. The results were compared with similar procedures through conventional approach (group B): 25 patients (7 female, 18 male; mean age: 59.09 ± 12.32 years).

Results In all 33 cases of minimally invasive access and 25 cases of conventional approach, aortic root replacement was successful. Operative times were as follows (in minutes; groups A and B)—cardiopulmonary bypass: 166.12 ± 40.61 and 162.88 ± 45.89; cross-clamp time: 122.24 ± 27.42 and 113.44 ± 22.57, respectively. In both groups, two patients needed postoperative reexploration due to secondary bleeding. One multimorbid patient suffered from postoperative stroke and died on the ninth postoperative day due to heart failure. The observed operation times and clinical results after minimally invasive surgery are comparable to conduit implantation through full median sternotomy.

Conclusions Partial upper sternotomy is a feasible access for safe aortic root replacement with valved conduits. Nevertheless, minimally invasive aortic root replacement is a challenging operative procedure.

 
  • References

  • 1 Shrestha M, Krueger H, Umminger J. , et al. Minimally invasive valve sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) is safe. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 4 (02) 148-153
  • 2 Malaisrie SC, Barnhart GR, Farivar RS. , et al. Current era minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: techniques and practice. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147 (01) 6-14
  • 3 Kaneko T, Couper GS, Borstlap WA. , et al. Minimal-access aortic valve replacement with concomitant aortic procedure: a 9-year experience. Innovations (Phila) 2012; 7 (05) 368-371
  • 4 Ramlawi B, Bedeir K, Lamelas J. Aortic valve surgery: minimally invasive options. Methodist DeBakey Cardiovasc J 2016; 12 (01) 27-32
  • 5 Paredes FA, Cánovas SJ, Gil O. , et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery. A safe and useful technique beyond the cosmetic benefits. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2013; 66 (09) 695-699
  • 6 Dooley A, Asimakopoulos G. Does a minimally invasive approach result in better pulmonary function postoperatively when compared with median sternotomy for coronary artery bypass graft?. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2013; 16 (06) 880-885
  • 7 Perrotta S, Lentini S. Ministernotomy approach for surgery of the aortic root and ascending aorta. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2009; 9 (05) 849-858
  • 8 Farhat F, Metton O, Jegaden O. Benefits and complications of total sternotomy and ministernotomy in cardiac surgery. Surg Technol Int 2004; 13: 199-205
  • 9 Mihaljevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Byrne JG. One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results. Ann Surg 2004; 240 (03) 529-534 , discussion 534
  • 10 Farhat F, Lu Z, Lefevre M, Montagna P, Mikaeloff P, Jegaden O. Prospective comparison between total sternotomy and ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement. J Card Surg 2003; 18 (05) 396-401 , discussion 402–403
  • 11 Sun L, Zheng J, Chang Q. , et al. Aortic root replacement by ministernotomy: technique and potential benefit. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 70 (06) 1958-1961
  • 12 Hillebrand J, Hoffmeier A, Djie Tiong Tjan T. , et al. Minimally invasive implantation of HeartWare assist device and simultaneous tricuspid valve reconstruction through partial upper sternotomy. Artif Organs 2016; DOI: 10.1111/aor.12789. . [Epub ahead of print]
  • 13 Franke UF, Ursulescu A, Göbel N. , et al. Results and quality of life after minimally invasive Ross procedure. J Heart Valve Dis 2015; 24 (03) 295-301
  • 14 Byrne JG, Adams DH, Couper GS, Rizzo RJ, Cohn LH, Aranki SF. Minimally-invasive aortic root replacement. Heart Surg Forum 1999; 2 (04) 326-329
  • 15 Bakir I, Casselman F, De Geest R. , et al. Minimally invasive aortic root replacement: a bridge too far?. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2007; 48 (01) 85-91
  • 16 Dhurandhar V, Parikh R, Saxena A. , et al. The aortic root replacement procedure: 12-year Experience from the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons Database. Heart Lung Circ 2016; 25 (12) 1245-1251
  • 17 Ergin MA, Spielvogel D, Apaydin A. , et al. Surgical treatment of the dilated ascending aorta: when and how?. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 67 (06) 1834-1839 , discussion 1853–1856
  • 18 Kouchoukos NT, Wareing TH, Murphy SF, Perrillo JB. Sixteen-year experience with aortic root replacement. Results of 172 operations. Ann Surg 1991; 214 (03) 308-318 , discussion 318–320
  • 19 Bentall H, De Bono A. A technique for complete replacement of the ascending aorta. Thorax 1968; 23 (04) 338-339
  • 20 David TE, Feindel CM. An aortic valve-sparing operation for patients with aortic incompetence and aneurysm of the ascending aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992; 103 (04) 617-621 , discussion 622
  • 21 Sarsam MA, Yacoub M. Remodeling of the aortic valve anulus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1993; 105 (03) 435-438
  • 22 van Putte BP, Ozturk S, Siddiqi S, Schepens MA, Heijmen RH, Morshuis WJ. Early and late outcome after aortic root replacement with a mechanical valve prosthesis in a series of 528 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93 (02) 503-509
  • 23 Byrne JG, Gudbjartsson T, Karavas AN. , et al. Biological vs. mechanical aortic root replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 23 (03) 305-310
  • 24 Gaudino M, Lau C, Munjal M, Avgerinos D, Girardi LN. Contemporary outcomes of surgery for aortic root aneurysms: a propensity-matched comparison of valve-sparing and composite valve graft replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 150 (05) 1120-9.e1
  • 25 Di Bartolomeo R, Botta L, Leone A. , et al. Bio-Valsalva prosthesis: ‘new’ conduit for ‘old’ patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2008; 7 (06) 1062-1066
  • 26 Woldendorp K, Starra E, Seco M. , et al. Replacement of the aortic root with a composite valve-graft conduit: risk factor analysis in 246 consecutive patients. Heart Lung Circ 2014; 23 (12) 1187-1193