Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Erschienen in: Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2/2018

24.02.2018 | Review Article

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is the effort justified?

verfasst von: Sathyaki Purushotham Nambala, Arul Furtado, Dharmesh Aggrawal, Rashmi Nanjundaiah

Erschienen in: Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery | Sonderheft 2/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery has been increasingly adopted by many as an alternative approach for aortic valve replacement over the last decade. Even so, considerable confusion continues to persist as to its benefits in terms of patient satisfaction, outcomes, cost effectiveness and other claimed advantages in comparison to the sternotomy approach. A review of published literature since the inception of the technique suggests that the minimally invasive approach for aortic valve replacement is reproducible and may eliminate the need for a full sternotomy in most patients.
Literatur
1.
Cosgrove DM III, Sabik JF. Minimaly invasive approach for aortic valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:596–7.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Cohn LH, Adams DH, Couper GS, et al. Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery improves patient satisfaction while reducing costs of cardiac valve replacement and repair. Ann Surg. 1997;226:421–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Svensson LG. Minimally invasive surgery with a partial sternotomy “J” approach. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;19:299–303.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Svennson LG, D’Agostino RS. “J” incision minimal-access valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:1110–2.CrossRef
5.
Aris A. Reversed “C” ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:1806–7.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Byrne JG, Karavas AN, Adams DH, et al. Partial upper re-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement or re-replacement after previous cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2000;18:282–6.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chang YS, Lin PJ, Chang CH, Chu JJ, Tan PP. “I”ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:40–5.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
Benetti FJ, Mariani MA, Rizzardi JL, Benetti I. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997;113:806–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Loor G, Desai MY, Roselli EE. Pre operative 3D CT imaging for virtual planning of minimally invasive aortic valve surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:269–71.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Aris A, Camara ML, Montinel J, Delgado LJ, Galan J, Litvan H. Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. A prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:1583–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Machler HE, Bergmann P, Anelli-Monti M, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations. A prospective study in 120 patients. Ann Thoarc Surg. 1999;67:1001–5.CrossRef
13.
Dogan S, Dzemali O, Wimmer-Greinecker G, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis. 2003;12:76–80.PubMed
14.
Moustafa MA, Abdelsamad AA, Zakaria G, Omrah MM. Minimal vs median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2007;15:472–5.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Bonacchi M, Prifti E, Giunti G, Frati G, Sani G. Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:460–5.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Calderon J, Richebe P, Guibaud JP, et al. Prospective randomized study of early pulmonary evaluation of patients scheduled for aortic valve performed by ministernotomy or total median sternotomy. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2009;23:795–801.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ahangar AG, Charag AH, Wani ML, et al. Comparing aortic valve replacement through right anterolateral thoracotomy with median sternotomy. Int Cardiovasc Res J. 2013;7:90–4.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Gilmanov D, Farneti PA, Ferrarini M, et al. Full sternotomy versus right anterior minithoracotomy for isolated aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: a propensity matched study. Interact Cardio Vasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20:732–41.CrossRef
19.
Tabata M, Umakanthan R, Cohn LH, et al. Early and late outcomes of 1000 minimally invasive aortic valve operations. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;33:537–41.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kaneko T, Loberman D, Gosev I, et al. Reoperative aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians - minimally invasive technique in the era of transcatheter valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:155–62.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Tabata M, Aranki SF, Fox JA, Couper GS, Cohn LH, Shekar PS. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in left ventricular dysfunction. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2007;15:225–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Brinkman WT, Hoffman W, Dewey TM, et al. Aortic valve replacement surgery: comparison of outcomes in matched sternotomy and PORT ACCESS groups. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:131–5.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Christiansen S, Stypmann J, Tjan TD, et al. Minimally-invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement–perioperative course and midterm results. Eur J Cardiothoac Surg. 1999;16:647–52.CrossRef
24.
Johnston DR, Atik FA, Rajeshwaran J, et al. Outcomes of less invasive J-incision approach to aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144:852–858.e3.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Stamou SC, Kapetanakis EI, Lowery R, Jablonski KA, Frankel TL, Corso PJ. Allogeneic blood transfusion requirements after minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a risk-adjusted analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76:1101–6.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Detter C, Deuse T, Boehm DH, Reichenspurner H, Reichart B. Midterm results and quality of life after minimally invasive vs. conventional aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;50:337–41.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Semsroth S, Matteucci-Gothe R, Heinz A, et al. Comparison of anterolateral minithoractomtomy versus partial upper hemisternotomy in aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:868–73.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gilmanov D, Bevilacqua S, Murzi M, et al. Minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:837–43.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Sansone F, Giuseppe P, Parisi F, et al. Right minithoractomy versus full sternotomy for the aortic valve replacement: preliminary results. Heart Lung Circ. 2012;21:169–73.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Glauber M, Miceli A, Gilmanov D, et al. Right anterior minithoracotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity matched study. J Thorac Cardiovascular Surg. 2013;145:1222–6.CrossRef
31.
Ruttmann E, Gilhofer TS, Ulmer H, et al. Propensity score- matched analysis of aortic valve replacement by mini-thoractomy. J Heart Valve Dis. 2010;19:606–14.PubMed
32.
Sharony R, Grossi EA, Saunders PC, et al. Propensity score analysis of a six-year experience with minimally invasive isolated aortic valve replacement. J Heart Valve Dis. 2004;13:887–93.PubMed
33.
De Vaumas C, Philip I, Daccache G, et al. Comparison of minithoractomy and conventional sternotomy approaches for valve surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2003;17:325–8.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Mikus E, Turci S, Calvi S, Ricci M, Dozza L, Del Giglio M. Aortic valve replacement through right minithoractomy: is it really biologically minimally invasive? Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:826–30.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Doll N, Borger M, Hain J, et al. Minimal access aortic valve replacement: effects on morbidity and resource utilization. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74:S1318–22.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Masiello P, Coscioni E, Panza A, Triumbari F, Preziosi G, Di Benedetto G. Surgical results of aortic valve replacement via partial upper sternotomy. Comparison with median sternotomy. Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;10:333–8.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Szwerc MF, Benckart DH, Wiechmann RJ, et al. Partial versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:2209–13.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Farhat F, Lu Z, Lefevre M, Montagna P, Mikaeloff P, Jegaden O. Prospective comparison between total sternotomy and ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement. J Card Surg. 2003;18:396–403.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Liu J, Sidiropoulos A, Konertz W. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared to standard AVR. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;16:S80–3.PubMed
40.
Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F, et al. Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:1599–604.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Shehada SE, Ozturk O, Wottke M, Lange R. Propensity score analysis of outcomes following minimal access versus conventional aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:464–70.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Furukawa N, Kussb O, Aboud A, et al. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Matched propensity score analysis of 808 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46:221–7.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Merk DR, Lehmann S, Holzhey DM, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement surgery is associated with improved survival: a propensitymatched comparison. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47:11–7.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Mihalijevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Byrne JG. One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results. Ann Surg. 2004;240:529–34.CrossRef
45.
Brown ML, McKellar SH, Sundt TM, Schaff HV. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and mete-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:670–9.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Ghanta RK, Lapar DJ, Kern JA, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement. A real world multi –institutional analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149:1060–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Neely RC, Boskovsi MT, Gosev I, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy. The Brigham and Women’s hospital experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:38–48.PubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Hiraoka A, Kuinose M, Chikazawa G, Totsugawa T, Katayama K, Yoshitaka H. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement surgery - comparison of port-access and conventional standard approach. Circ J. 2011;75:1656–60.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Murtuza B, Pepper JR, Stanbridge RD, et al. Minimal access aortic valve replacement: is it worth it? Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:1121–31.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Plass A, Schefel H, Alkadhi H, et al. Aortic valve replacement through a minimally invasive approach preoperative planning. Surgical technique and outcome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:1851–6.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Glower DD, Lee T, Deasai B. Aortic valve replacement through right minithoracotomy in 306 consecutive patients. Innovations. 2010;5:326–30.PubMed
52.
Micelli A, Murzi M, Gilmanov D, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using right anterior minithoracotomy is associated with better outcomes than ministernotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:133–7.CrossRef
53.
Bowdish ME, Hui DS, Cleveland JD, et al. A comparison of aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy with standard sternotomy: a propensity score analysis of 492 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:456–63.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Tabata M, Umakanthan R, Khalpey Z, et al. Conversion to full sternotomy during minimal–access cardiac surgery: reasons and results during a 9.5 year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:165–9.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Byrne JG, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Adams DH, Allred EN, Cohn LH. Reoperative aortic valve replacement: partial upper hemisternotomy versus conventional full sternotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;118:991–7.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Pineda AM, Santana O, Reyna J, Sarria A, Lamas GA, Lamelas J. Outcomes of reoperative aortic valve replacement via right minithoractomy versus median sternotomy. J Heart Valve Dis. 2013;22:50–5.PubMed
57.
Walther T, Falk V, Metz S, et al. Pain and quality of life after minimally invasive versus conventional cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:1643–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is the effort justified?
verfasst von
Sathyaki Purushotham Nambala
Arul Furtado
Dharmesh Aggrawal
Rashmi Nanjundaiah
Publikationsdatum
24.02.2018
Verlag
Springer Singapore
Erschienen in
Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery / Ausgabe Sonderheft 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0970-9134
Elektronische ISSN: 0973-7723
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-017-0640-9

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 2/2018

Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Guest Editorial

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery—from early steps to consolidation

Review Article

Transcatheter mitral valve replacement

Review Article

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through right anterolateral thoracotomy—review and personal experience

Case report

Transapical valve-in-valve replacement of a stenosed prosthetic mitral valve in a critically ill patient with cardiogenic shock: a case report

Review Article

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery

Editorial

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery—a push to kaizen!

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare
CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.