Key result
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a right parasternal small incision significantly reduced postoperative hospital length of stay compared to conventional median sternotomy (10.3 vs 12.5 days, p<0.05).
Why the study?
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right parasternal small incision improve postoperative recovery compared to conventional median sternotomy in patients with isolated aortic valve disease?
Cohort (n=70)
No
Does minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right parasternal small incision improve postoperative recovery compared to conventional median sternotomy in patients with isolated aortic valve disease?
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a right parasternal small incision is safe, feasible, and significantly reduces hospital length of stay compared to conventional median sternotomy.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fujii et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Isolated aortic valve disease (n=70). Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MICS AVR) via right parasternal small incision vs. Conventional aortic valve replacement (median sternotomy) was evaluated on Postoperative hospital length of stay (days) (p=<0.05). Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a right parasternal small incision significantly reduced postoperative hospital length of stay compared to conventional median sternotomy (10.3 vs 12.5 days, p<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: