Key result
Thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement via minimal incision significantly reduced postoperative length of hospital stay (8.2 vs. 12.8 days) compared to conventional replacement.
Why the study?
Does thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement via minimal incision improve perioperative outcomes compared to conventional mitral valve replacement in patients with mitral valve lesions?
Cohort (n=225)
No
Does thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement via minimal incision improve perioperative outcomes compared to conventional mitral valve replacement in patients with mitral valve lesions?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.2% vs 12.8%
Thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement via a minimal right-anterior incision is safe and feasible, offering shorter recovery times, less bleeding, and smaller incisions compared to conventional surgery.
Minimal-incision thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement was associated with shorter hospital stay; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to investigate the safety, feasibility, and clinical effectiveness of thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement via thoracic right-anterior minimal incision. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted of 225 patients with mitral valve lesions who were treated in our hospital from August 2012 to August 2015. Group A included 105 patients undergoing thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement via a thoracic right-anterior minimal incision, and group B included 120 patients undergoing conventional mitral valve replacement. We collected and analyzed clinical data from both groups. RESULTS The procedures were successful in patients of both groups. No severe complications or mortality were reported. Postoperative mechanical ventilation time (8.6±2.4 h vs. 12.4±3.2 h), duration of intensive care (1.7±1.2 d vs. 2.8±1.3 d), duration of postoperative analgesia use (28.7±8.9 h vs. 36.3±7.5 h), postoperative length of hospital stay (8.2±2.2 d vs. 12.8±2.1 d), pleural fluid drainage (210.5±60.5 ml vs. 425.4±75.6 ml), blood transfusion amount (420.5±80.4 ml vs. 658.3±96.7 ml), and operative incision length (4.7±1.1 cm vs. 22.4±2.5 cm) were significantly shorter (or lower) in group A than in group B. There were different advantages and disadvantages in the 2 kinds of operative procedure in terms of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS Thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement via thoracic right-anterior minimal incision has the same clinical efficacy, safety, and feasibility as conventional mitral valve replacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve lesions (n=225). Thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement via thoracic right-anterior minimal incision vs. Conventional mitral valve replacement was evaluated on Postoperative length of hospital stay (days). Thoracoscopy-assisted mitral valve replacement via minimal incision significantly reduced postoperative length of hospital stay (8.2 vs. 12.8 days) compared to conventional replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: