Minimally invasive aortic root surgery: Midterm results in a 2-year follow-up

Effect of minimally invasive versus conventional aortic root replacement on transfusion and postoperative wound complications in patients: A meta-analysis

We examined whether small incision aortic root replacement could reduce the amount of blood transfusion during operation and the risk of postoperative complications. An extensive e-review of the 4 main databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science and EMBASE) was carried out to determine all the published trials by July 2023. The search terms used were associated with partial versus full sternotomy and aortic root. This analysis only included the study articles that compared partial and full sternotomy. After excluding articles based on titles or abstracts, selected full-text articles had reference lists searched for any potential further articles. We analysed a total of 2167 subjects from 10 comparable trials. The minimally invasive aortic root graft in breastbone decreased the duration of hospitalization (MD, -2.58; 95% CI, -3.15, -2.01, p < 0.0001) and intraoperative red blood cell transfusion (MD, -1.27; 95% CI, -2.34, -0.19, p = 0.02). However, there were no significant differences in wound infection (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.16, 4.93, p = 0.88), re-exploration for bleeding (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.60, 1.53, p = 0.86), intraoperative blood loss (MD, -259.19; 95% CI, -615.11, 96.73, p = 0.15) and operative time (MD, -7.39; 95% CI, -19.10, 4.32, p = 0.22); the results showed that the microsternotomy did not differ significantly from that of the routine approach. Small sternotomy may be an effective and safe substitute for the treatment of the aorta root. Nevertheless, the wide variety of data indicates that larger, well-designed studies are required to back up the current limited literature evidence showing a benefit in terms of complications like postoperative wound infections or the volume of intraoperative red blood cell transfusion.

Minimally invasive approach: is this the future of aortic surgery?

Median sternotomy incision has shown to be a safe and efficacious approach in patients who require thoracic aortic interventions and still represents the gold-standard access. Nevertheless, over the last decade, less invasive techniques have gained wider clinical application in cardiac surgery becoming the first-choice approach to treat heart valve diseases, in experienced centers. The popularization of less invasive techniques coupled with an increased patient demand for less invasive therapies has motivated aortic surgeons to apply minimally invasive approaches to more challenging procedures, such as aortic root replacement and arch repair. However, technical demands and the paucity of available clinical data have still limited the widespread adoption of minimally invasive thoracic aortic interventions. This review aimed to assess and comment on the surgical techniques and the current evidence on mini thoracic aortic surgery.

Outcomes of the Valve-Sparing Root Replacement Procedure with Partial Upper Sternotomy

Due to better postoperative convalescence and quality of life, experienced centers focus on minimally invasive surgical techniques and approaches, but this approach is not routinely performed for valve-sparing root replacement procedures. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of valve-sparing root replacement via partial upper sternotomy. Between January 2016 and April 2021, 269 patients underwent a valve-sparing root replacement procedure, and partial upper sternotomy was performed in 52 patients. The clinical outcomes of the partial upper sternotomy (PUS) and complete sternotomy (CS) groups, including mortality, degree of aortic insufficiency, blood loss and consumption of blood products, postoperative complications, and hospitalization expenses, were compared. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to assess the degree of aortic regurgitation. Propensity score matching was performed as a sensitivity analysis. There was only one in-hospital death (in the CS group, p = 1) and no postoperative moderate to severe aortic insufficiency in either group. The blood loss and consumption of blood products in the PUS group were also lower than in the CS group, especially for plasma use. Regarding the need for re-exploration because of bleeding, acute kidney injury, pericardial pleural effusion, drainage volume within the first 24 h, mechanical ventilation time, and arrhythmia, the two groups were comparable. Patients in the CS group showed a longer ICU time (74.20 ± 47.21 vs. 50.9 30.16 h, p = 0.001) and higher hospitalization expenses (135,649.52 ± 29,992.21 vs. 123,380.15 ± 27,062.82 yuan, p < 0.001). None of the patients died or reoperated during the follow-up. Freedom from moderate or severe aortic insufficiency remained comparable after matching (p = 0.97). Minimally invasive valve-sparing aortic replacement via partial upper sternotomy can be safely performed in selected patients.

The mini-Bentall approach: Comparison with full sternotomy

Background

The upper mini sternotomy Bentall (mini-Bentall) procedure may result in less trauma and earlier recovery compared with the full sternotomy Bentall procedure (full Bentall). This study compares immediate and 1- and 3-year survival rates after mini- and full Bentall procedures.

Methods

Between February 2009 and July 2019, 48 patients underwent a mini-Bentall and 49 underwent a full Bentall. Patients who required concomitant procedures, reoperations, or hypothermic circulatory arrest were excluded from our analysis. The mean patient age was 60.7 years in the mini-Bentall group and 59.0 years in the full Bentall group.

Results

There were no in-hospital mortalities. The median cardiopulmonary bypass time (mini-Bentall: 165 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 155.5-183 minutes]; full Bentall: 164 minutes [IQR, 150-187 minutes]; P = .619) and aortic cross-clamp times (139 minutes [IQR, 128.5-153 minutes] vs 137 minutes [IQR, 125-156 minutes]; P = .948) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The mini-Bentall group had a significantly shorter median ventilation time compared with the full Bentall group (5.5 hours [IQR, 3-14 hours] vs 17 hours [IQR, 11-23 hours]; P < .001). None of the patients in the mini-Bentall group had postoperative bleeding necessitating reoperation, whereas 4 patients (8.2%) underwent reoperation after full Bentall (P = .043). The mini-Bentall group also had a shorter median hospital length of stay (6 days [IQR, 5-8 days] vs 7 days [IQR, 6-8 days]; P = .086). Survival at 1 and 3 years was 100% in both cohorts.

Conclusions

Patients required significantly less ventilation time and reoperations for bleeding after the mini-Bentall procedure. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamp times, or intensive care unit and hospital length of stay between the mini-Bentall and full Bentall groups. The mini-Bentall approach is associated with low morbidity and mortality.