Key result
Totally thoracoscopic MVR shows similar major postoperative complication rates to median sternotomy.
Why the study?
The feasibility and safety of mitral valve replacement using a totally thoracoscopic approach compared with traditional median sternotomy were investigated.
Does totally thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement improve postoperative recovery and safety compared to traditional median sternotomy in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Cohort (n=94)
Does totally thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement improve postoperative recovery and safety compared to traditional median sternotomy in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 6.98% vs 7.84%
p-value: p=0.873
Totally thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement is a feasible and safe alternative to traditional sternotomy, offering shorter ICU and hospital stays despite requiring longer cardiopulmonary bypass times.
Thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement appears feasible in selected patients; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm safety versus sternotomy.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of mitral valve replacement using a totally thoracoscopic approach in comparison with traditional median sternotomy. METHODS: Between January 2016 and December 2017, 94 consecutive patients who underwent mitral valve replacement were divided into two groups: A thoracoscopic group (43 cases) and a traditional group (51 cases). For the thoracoscopic group, all patients underwent total thoracoscopic procedures with femoral arterial and venous cannulation to cardiopulmonary bypass, transthoracic aortic cross-clamp, and antegrade cardioplegia. Three intercostal ports in the right chest were used for access in the thoracoscopic group. The operation was performed completely under two-dimensional video. For the traditional group, all operations were done with traditional median sternotomy. RESULTS: All the operations were successfully performed. The thoracoscopic group had longer aortic cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass times compared with the traditional group (62.30 ± 8.17 minutes versus 44.90 ± 12.00 minutes, P < .001; 92.33 ± 12.03 minutes versus 74.22 ± 14.72 minutes, P < .001). The two groups did not show statistically significant differences with respect to operative times (184.26 ± 32.49 minutes versus 181.47 ± 23.31 minutes, P = .631). In addition, the postoperative mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and postoperative hospital stay times and postoperative drainage were 10.14 ± 2.21 hours and 11.35 ± 2.58 hours (P = .016), 21.40 ± 3.15 hours and 29.12 ± 6.59 hours (P < .001), 8.70 ± 2.52 days and 10.04 ± 3.11 days (P = .023), and 325.71 ± 97.11 mL and 396.57 ± 121.50 mL (P < .001), respectively. Major postoperative complications occurred in three (6.98%, P = .873) cases of the thoracoscopic group. Four (7.84%) cases of the traditional group had postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the disadvantages such as long cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, totally thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement is feasible and safe. More importantly, one of the principal advantages with three intercostal ports over standard sternotomy is avoiding retrosternal adhesion, thus lowering the risk of needing to redo a cardiac procedure in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve replacement (n=94). Totally thoracoscopic approach vs. Traditional median sternotomy was evaluated on Major postoperative complications (p=0.873). Totally thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement resulted in similar rates of major postoperative complications compared to traditional median sternotomy (6.98% vs 7.84%, P=0.873).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: