Key result
Minimally invasive cardiac surgery techniques, including various mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy approaches, offer safe and feasible alternatives to traditional sternotomy with better recovery.
Why the study?
With technological advancements and growing surgical experience allowing cardiac operations through mini-incisions, there was a need to review minimally invasive cardiac surgery approaches, incisions, technical details, and suggestions.
This review outlines the technical approaches, incisions, and practical suggestions for adopting minimally invasive cardiac surgery, emphasizing safety and a step-by-step learning curve.
Should not yet change sternotomy practice; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm recovery benefits.
Over the past two decades, minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been adopted with the use of endoscopic methods in 1990s and advanced robotic surgery since the early 2000s. In parallel with technological developments, surgical experience has increased and several cardiac operations are able to be performed using different mini-incisions. In this review, we discuss approaches to minimally invasive cardiac surgery, incisions, technical details, and suggestions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Burak Onan (2020) conducted a review in Cardiac surgery. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) vs. Conventional full median sternotomy was evaluated. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery techniques, including various mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy approaches, offer safe and feasible alternatives to traditional sternotomy with better recovery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: