Cadaveric trial assesses a minimally invasive approach for combined coronary and valve surgery, suggesting potential for clinical use.
Coronary artery bypass grafting is frequently performed in combination with valve surgery; however, minimally invasive approaches for such combined procedures remain limited due to challenges in exposure and access. While bilateral minimally invasive strategies have been described in selected cases, standardized access concepts for concomitant procedures are not well defined. This study aimed to assess the anatomical accessibility and procedural workflow of a minimally invasive biaxillary access strategy for combined coronary and valve surgery in a human cadaver model. Combined coronary artery bypass grafting and valve procedures were performed in nine Thiel/ethanol-fixed human cadavers using a biaxillary access approach. Anatomical exposure, conduit length, graft harvesting and anastomosis times, and valve positioning were evaluated by macroscopic inspection and postprocedural three-dimensional computed tomography imaging. All planned procedural steps were completed in all nine cadavers. The mean left and right internal thoracic artery lengths were 18.1 ± 1.8 cm and 18.9 ± 1.9 cm, respectively. The average bilateral internal thoracic artery harvest and anastomosis times were 52.0 ± 17.6 min and 46.6 ± 12.6 min, respectively. Postprocedural three-dimensional computed tomography imaging and macroscopic inspection demonstrated consistent graft positioning and anatomical valve seating across all specimens. This cadaveric study demonstrates that a minimally invasive biaxillary access strategy allows anatomical exposure and supports a conceptual procedural workflow for combined coronary and valve interventions. These findings represent an early-stage technical proof-of-concept and require further validation before clinical application can be considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tasdelen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: