The appropriate procedure for mitral annular calcification in mitral valve surgery must be selected on a case-by-case basis concerning the range and properties of the calcification [
8]. The approach for the calcium bar involves avoiding manipulation of the calcified mass, partial decalcification, and complete decalcification following annular reconstruction. Although extensive calcium debridement enable implantation of a larger prosthesis, it may cause atrioventricular disruption and result in hematoma, left circumflex coronary artery injury, stroke, embolization, and left ventricle posterior wall rupture. Feindel et al. and Mihaljevic et al. favor intra-annular insertion of a mitral prosthesis after the removal of the calcium bar and the creation of a new annulus for MAC [
1,
2]. A previous study demonstrated that the operative mortality of mitral valve surgery with MAC was higher (9.3%) than that without MAC (1.5%) during the same period, even with a complicated technique. A study reported an in-hospital mortality rate of 20% with no relevance to the operative technique. With the widespread use of therapies for structural heart disease, transcatheter MVR has been initiated as the treatment of choice for severe MAC in patients with prohibitive surgical risk. However, it is uncertain whether long-term results can be evaluated [
9]. Furthermore, this procedure has not yet been approved for use in Japan. Another approach involves the intra-atrial insertion of a mitral prosthesis, which enlarges the circumference of the sewing ring with a Dacron collar, as described by Nataf et al. and Sakamoto et al. [
3,
4]. However, we were concerned about periprosthetic leakage, hemorrhage of the fragile left atrial wall, and subsequent aneurysm formation. The technique of sealing between the calcified mitral annulus and the sewing ring of the prosthesis with the materials, such as equine pericardial patch, PTFE felt, and transferred anterior mitral leaflet, may be valuable adjuncts, as reported by Okita et al., Hussain et al., and Nezic et al. [
5‐
7]; both intra and supra-annular insertion of a mitral prosthesis are acceptable. To prevent the occurrence of complications, we decided to remove only the friable calcified mass, which is easily scattered, and leave the solid calcium bar untouched. Furthermore, it was important to completely cover the area of the decalcified annulus to circumvent systemic embolization of calcium fragments. Additionally, providing a satisfactory visual field of annular reconstruction in the small left ventricular cavity is challenging. Finally, we needed to avoid prolonging the aortic cross-clamp time in a failing heart. Hence, we sutured the prosthetic valve to the atrial wall in a region where sutures could not pass through the calcified annulus. This may have resulted in periprosthetic leakage and hemolytic anemia due to the dehiscence of the prosthetic valve. In the other region, non-everting mattress sutures could be placed in the annulus with appropriate strength without placing a calcium bar into the disorder. As the present patient was deemed to be at high risk for conventional MVR, we applied a composite prosthetic valve that was enlarged circumferentially on the ventricular side of the prosthesis with a bovine pericardial patch. The bioprosthetic valve was not selected, fearing that the stent strut would cause left ventricular rupture, and a smaller prosthesis size was required for implantation owing to double valve replacement. The bovine pericardial patch, which was flexibly held between the native mitral annulus and the sewing cuff of the prosthesis, was considered a suitable material for support and stability. Reinforcement of anchoring of the pericardial patch edge all over the the left atrial wall circumference plays an important role in distributing and evenly buffering the effect on the prosthesis with high left ventricular pressure and reducing the risk of periprosthetic leakage, even if two sutures were placed on the atrial wall. The chosen St. Jude Medical valve is advantageous owing to its low-profile design, minimizes leaflet exposure below the prosthesis, and appears to be feasible to avoid impingement of residual mitral leaflets and subvalvular apparatus. The anti-anatomical implantation of a mitral prosthesis reduces the risk of valve thrombosis and hemolysis [
10]. However, this direction was not chosen because increasing the clearance below the mitral prosthesis was a higher priority. However, proper management using anticoagulation therapy is mandatory. Additionally, TEE is a useful modality for the accurate preoperative identification of calcium bars and postoperative assessment of implanted prostheses. TEE plays a crucial role in determining whether conventional MVR can be performed prior to surgery and the required treatment strategy. MVR with a collar-reinforced mitral prosthesis is as an effective alternative technique for patients with severe MAC. The present case highlights the importance of the MAC approach, which consists of removing only the friable calcified mass and leaving the solid calcium bar untouched, to alleviate catastrophic complications due to extensive calcium debridement. Additionally, it is useful for securing the seating of the prosthesis by a double-layer structure that was placed in both supra-annular and intra-atrial positions, while ensuring that the placement in the intra-atrial position is avoided whenever possible.