Lower median sternotomy for isolated AVR showed similar early safety to full median sternotomy, with significantly higher patient satisfaction with scar appearance (92.0% vs 37.5%, P=0.001).
Cohort (n=41)
Does minimally invasive lower median sternotomy improve perioperative outcomes compared to conventional full median sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Minimally invasive lower median sternotomy is a safe and feasible alternative to full median sternotomy for isolated AVR, offering equivalent perioperative outcomes and superior cosmetic results.
Absolute Event Rate: 92% vs 37.5%
p-value: p=0.001
Objective: This study aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between minimally invasive lower median sternotomy (LMS) and conventional full median sternotomy (FMS) in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR).Methods: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 41 patients who underwent isolated AVR (25 via LMS, 16 via FMS).Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and early postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between the two groups.Results: The two groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics.There were no significant differences in intraoperative metrics, including operation time (LMS 238.645.3 vs. FMS 264.977.7 min, P=0.177), cardiopulmonary bypass time (145.541.6 vs. 140.927.7 min, P=0.700), and aortic cross-clamp time (116.432.9 vs. 111.623.1 min, P=0.609).No red blood cell or plasma transfusion were required in either group.Postoperatively, there were no 30-day deaths or severe adverse events.The lengths of hospital stay (7.53.6 vs. 7.64.0days, P=0.972), ICU stay (1.91.1 vs. 2.21.0 days, J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o fJournal Pre-proof P=0.366), and mechanical ventilation time (12.55.9 vs. 12.65.3hours, P=0.954) were similar between the two groups.Patient satisfaction with scar appearance was significantly higher in the LMS group than in the FMS group (92.0% vs. 37.5%, P=0.001).Conclusion: LMS for isolated AVR represents a safe and feasible minimally invasive alternative to conventional FMS, with equivalent intraoperative efficiency and early postoperative safety profiles, and offers superior cosmetic outcomes.LMS offers a viable minimally invasive option without compromising procedural outcomes.
Wang et al. (Fri,) conducted a cohort in Isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n=41). Minimally invasive lower median sternotomy (LMS) vs. Conventional full median sternotomy (FMS) was evaluated on Patient satisfaction with scar appearance (p=0.001). Lower median sternotomy for isolated AVR showed similar early safety to full median sternotomy, with significantly higher patient satisfaction with scar appearance (92.0% vs 37.5%, P=0.001).