With improved cardiac surgical outcomes, attention has shifted to patient-centred outcomes, including cosmetic appearances of surgical scars. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) is often promoted for its cosmetic benefits, yet empirical evidence remains limited. This study aimed to systematically evaluate scar-specific outcomes comparing MICS to conventional full median sternotomy (FMS) in adult cardiac surgery.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Central, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2025. Studies comparing MICS to FMS, reporting scar-related patient-reported outcomes, wound complications, or cosmetic satisfaction, were included. The primary outcome was scar assessment using validated instruments. Random-effects models calculated standardised mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.
Results
Twenty-two studies comprising 3131 patients (1459 MICS, 1672 FMS) met inclusion criteria. MICS demonstrated significantly better scar assessment scores (SMD −0.74, 95% CI −1.27 to −0.22; p < 0.01; I2 = 88%, six studies), higher patient satisfaction rates (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.21–1.66; p < 0.001; I2 = 84%, 12 studies), and reduced wound complications (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20–0.47; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%, nine studies). Only six studies reported validated scar assessment scores, highlighting limited integration of these measures. Substantial heterogeneity was observed due to diverse assessment tools and surgical techniques.
Conclusions
MICS can offer significant advantages in scar-specific outcomes compared to FMS in carefully selected patient populations. Cosmetic outcomes should be interpreted within the context of overall effectiveness and may support shared decision making only when clinical outcomes between surgical approaches are comparable. The lack of standardised scar assessment protocols and limited reporting of cosmetic outcomes represent critical gaps. Future research should prioritise standardised scar evaluation tools and expand cosmetic outcome reporting across all cardiac surgical procedures.
MatacheRDumitrescuMBoboceaA, et al.Median sternotomy - gold standard incision for cardiac surgeons. J Clin Investig Surg2016; 1(1): 33–40. https://doi.org/10.25083/2559.5555.11.3340
2.
IlchevaLHäusslerACholubekM, et al.Thirteen years of impactful, minimally invasive coronary surgery: short- and long-term results for single and multi-vessel disease. J Clin Med2024; 13(3): 761. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13030761
3.
ChanPGSeeseLAranda-MichelE, et al.Operative mortality in adult cardiac surgery: is the currently utilized definition justified?J Thorac Dis2021; 13(10): 5582–5591. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-2213
D’AgostinoRSJacobsJPBadhwarV, et al.The society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac surgery database: 2019 update on outcomes and quality. Ann Thorac Surg2019; 107(1): 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.10.004
8.
MassettiMNatafPBabatasiG, et al.Cosmetic aspects in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg1999; 16(Supplement_2): S73–S75Available from. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/16.Supplement_2.S73
9.
GrantVRCrerandCEJacksonJL. Implications of cardiac scarring on body image disturbance among young adults with congenital heart defects. J Cardiovasc Nurs2024; 39(6): E212–E217. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCN.0000000000001091
10.
ClaessensJRottiersRVandenbrandeJ, et al.Quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a systematic review. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2023; 39(4): 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-023-01501-y
KhalidSHassanMAliA, et al.Minimally invasive approaches versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic valve disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 269 patients. Ann Med Surg2024; 86(7): 4005, 4014. https://doi.org/10.1097/ms9.0000000000002204
KantorJ. The SCAR (scar cosmesis assessment and rating) scale: development and validation of a new outcome measure for postoperative scar assessment. Br J Dermatol2016; 175(6): 1394–1396. Available from. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.14812
16.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Br Med J2021; 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
17.
NesbittJJMoriGMason-AppsC, et al.Comparison of early and late quality of life between left anterior thoracotomy and median sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Perfusion2017; 32(1): 50–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659116657166
18.
AhangarAGCharagAHWaniML, et al.Comparing aortic valve replacement through right anterolateral. ■■■.
19.
AliahmedHMAKaraliusRValaikaA, et al.Efficacy of aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy and minimal invasion (ministernotomy). Medicina2018; 54(2): 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina54020026
20.
AmrMA. Evaluation of feasibility and outcome of isolated aortic valve replacement surgery through J-shaped upper ministernotomy: a comparative study versus full sternotomy. J Egypt Soc Cardio-Thorac Surg2016; 24(2): 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jescts.2016.08.006
21.
ArisACámaraMLMontielJ, et al.Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg1999; 67(6): 1583–1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-4975(99)00362-8
CrosslandDSJacksonSPLyallR, et al.Patient attitudes to sternotomy and thoracotomy scars. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2005; 53(2): 93–95. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-830422
24.
DetterCDeuseTBoehmDH, et al.Midterm results and quality of life after minimally invasive vs. conventional aortic valve replacement. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2002; 50(6): 337–341. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-35743
25.
ElghannamMUseiniDMoustafineV, et al.Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic root surgery: results of an intermediate-volume center. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2024; 72(02): 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2041-3695
chenHLChenDwanCL, et al.The use of the scar cosmesis assessment and rating scale to evaluate the cosmetic outcomes of totally thoracoscopic cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Surg2020; 15(1): 250. Available from. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-020-01294-w
28.
chenHLzhongCDwanCL, et al.Health-related quality of life following minimally invasive totally endoscopic mitral valve surgery. J Cardiothorac Surg2020; 15(1): 194. Available from. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-020-01242-8
29.
İstarHSevukU. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery in low-resource settings: right vertical infra-axillary mini-thoracotomy without peripheral cannulation - the first 100 cases. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci2023; 27(13): 6247–6255. https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202307_32984
30.
İyigünTKayaMGülbeyazSÖ, et al.Patient body image, self-esteem, and cosmetic results of minimally invasive robotic cardiac surgery. Int J Surg2017; 39: 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.01.105
31.
LiuJChenBZhangYY, et al.Mitral valve replacement via minimally invasive totally thoracoscopic surgery versus traditional median sternotomy: a propensity score matched comparative study. Ann Transl Med2019; 7(14): 341. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.07.07
32.
Miranda-TorrónJMPérez-CamargoDCarnero-AlcázarM, et al.Conventional or minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: perioperative and 3-year outcomes. Cir Cardiovasc2025, S113400962500186X. Available from. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S113400962500186X
33.
NguyenTBNguyenTTLuongLH, et al.Minimally invasive versus median sternotomy for mechanical mitral valve replacement: a single-center comparative study of treatment outcomes and quality of life. Ital J Med2025; 19(2): 1963. https://doi.org/10.4081/itjm.2025.1963
34.
PiarulliAChiarielloGABrunoP, et al.Psychological effects of skin incision size in minimally invasive valve surgery patients. Innovat Tech Tech CardioThorac Vasc Surg2020; 15(6): 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556984520956980
ShahZAAhangarAGGanieFA, et al.Comparison of right anterolateral thorocotomy with standard median steronotomy for mitral valve replacement. Int Cardiovasc Res J2013; 7(1): 15–20.
37.
WhiteleyJToolanCShawM, et al.Patient-reported outcome measures after mitral valve repair: a comparison between minimally invasive and sternotomy. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2021; 32(3): 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaa276
38.
YangMSuJLiuA, et al.Correction of simple congenital heart defects by right axillary thoracotomy in adults. J Card Surg2019; 34(11): 1172–1177. Available from. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14172
39.
JulianOCLopez-BelioMDyeWS, et al.The median sternal incision in intracardiac surgery with extracorporeal circulation; a general evaluation of its use in heart surgery. Surgery1957; 42(4): 753–761.
40.
CarrièreMEMokkinkLBTyackZ, et al.Development of the patient scale of the patient and observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) 3.0: a qualitative study. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil2023; 32(2): 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03244-6
41.
CatalanoMAHemliJMYuPJ, et al.Patient satisfaction scores after cardiac surgery: should they be risk-adjusted?Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2023; 35(4): 696–704. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2022.06.015
42.
HartAFurkertCCliffordK, et al.Impact of incisional surgical site infections on quality of life and patient satisfaction after general surgery: a case controlled study. Surg Infect2021; 22(10): 1039–1046. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2021.033
43.
FleisherJKhalifehAPettkerC, et al.Patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome in a randomized study of cesarean skin closure. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med Off J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet2019; 32(22): 3830–3835. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1474870
44.
ReidDMalakSKhadkaM, et al.Keloids and hypertrophic scars in individuals with darker fitzpatrick skin types: a systematic review of treatment efficacy and quality of life outcomes. Arch Dermatol Res2025; 317(1): 795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-025-04292-x
45.
WuJZouJYangQ, et al.The effects of scar in psychological disorder: a bibliometric analysis from 2003 to 2022. Int Wound J2024; 21(1): e14373. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14373
46.
SinghDChopraKSabinoJ, et al.Practical things you should know about wound healing and vacuum-assisted closure management. Plast Reconstr Surg2020; 145(4): 839e–854e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000006652
47.
ShenZShaoJSunJ, et al.Exosomes released by melanocytes modulate fibroblasts to promote keloid formation: a pilot study. J Zhejiang Univ - Sci B2022; 23(8): 699–704. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B2200036
SivakumarJChenQHiiMW, et al.Learning curve of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Surg Endosc2023; 37(4): 2453–2475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09760-3
50.
ModiPHassanAChitwoodWRJr. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg2008; 34(5): 943–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.07.057
51.
BernabeRMMadrigalPChoeD, et al.Assessing scar outcomes using objective scar measurement tools: an adjunct to validated scar evaluation scales. Plast Reconstr Surg2024; 154(5): 885e–890e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000011424
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
