Minimally invasive versus conventional methods for aortic root surgery: Choosing the right approach

Abstract

Objective

Partial upper sternotomy is preferred for isolated aortic valve replacement because of its optimal surgical visibility and favorable cosmetic outcomes; however, it is not commonly used for aortic root surgery, and the conventional median sternotomy is still the preferred method for most surgeons. We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of a minimally invasive approach (partial sternotomy [PS]) and conventional approach (median sternotomy [FS]) for aortic root surgery.

Methods

Patients who underwent aortic root surgery at our hospital from 2016 to 2021 were retrospectively enrolled and divided into two groups. After propensity score matching, the conventional group included 156 patients and the minimally invasive group—57 patients.

Results

Bicuspid aortic valves were observed in 63 (40.4%) and 33 (57.9%) patients in the FS and PS groups, respectively. Valve-sparing surgery was performed on 69 (44.2%) and 30 (52.6%) patients in the FS and PS groups, respectively. The minimally invasive approach was beneficial in terms of blood loss during the first 24 h after surgery (p = 0.029) and postoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.023). The survival rates and freedom from reoperation or severe aortic regurgitation after the David procedure were comparable between the standard and minimally invasive groups (p = 0.25; p = 0.66) at mid-term follow-up.

Conclusions

A minimally invasive approach for aortic root surgery can be safely performed as the standard approach. Partial upper sternotomy has the advantage of lower blood loss in the early postoperative period and does not negatively affect the results of valve-sparing root replacement.