Both J- and L-shaped upper hemisternotomy approaches are suitable for total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk in patients with Type A dissection

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive total arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) implantation can be carried out through J-, L-, and inverted T-shaped upper ministernotomy. L- and inverted T-shaped upper ministernotomy are selected mostly for their better surgical view compared to J-shaped. However, few studies have paid attention to the difference in clinical effects between J- and L-shaped upper hemisternotomy in acute Type A aortic dissection (ATAAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 74 consecutive patients with ATAAD who underwent TAR with FET implantation between December 2019 and October 2020. Patients were divided into the L group (n = 31, L-shaped upper hemisternotomy) and the J group (n = 43, J-shaped upper hemisternotomy). Perioperative characteristics were recorded.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in any of the pre-operative, post-operative, or follow-up variables between the two groups. However, the CPB establishment time in the J group was significantly shorter than that in the L group (65.0 ± 17.9 min vs. 77.9 ± 17.2 min, P < 0.05). Other intraoperative variables showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Total arch replacement with frozen elephant trunk implantation is feasible and can be carried out safely through J-shaped or L-shaped incision. A J-shaped incision might be beneficial for single incision, while an L-shaped incision might be beneficial if an extra incision is required to achieve better artery perfusion.

Aortic valve replacement through minithoracotomy. Results from the Peruvian experience

Objectives

To assess mortality, major valve-related events (MAVRE), and other complications in the perioperative period and follow up in patients with aortic valve replacement (AVR) through mini-thoracotomy (MT).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients aged <80 who underwent AVR through MT between January 2017 and December 2021 in a national reference center in Lima, Peru. Patients undergoing other surgical approaches (mini-sternotomy, etc.), other concomitant cardiac procedures, redo, and emergency surgeries were excluded. We measured the variables (MAVRE, mortality, and other clinical variables) at 30 days and a mean follow-up of 12 months.

Results

Fifty-four patients were studied, the median age was 69.5 years, and 65% were women. Aortic valve (AV) stenosis was the main indication for surgery (65%), and bicuspid AV represented 55.6% of cases. At 30-days, MAVRE occurred in two patients (3.7%), with no in-hospital mortality. One patient had an intraoperative ischemic stroke, and one required a permanent pacemaker. No patient underwent reoperation due to prosthesis dysfunction or endocarditis. In a mean follow-up of one year, MAVRE occurrence did not show variations with the perioperative period, most patients remained in NYHA I (90.7%) or II (7.4%) compared to the preoperative period (p<0.001).

Conclusions

AV replacement through MT is a safe procedure in our center for patients under 80 years.

The Opportunities and Limitations of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive techniques for classic heart valve surgery and isolated bypass surgery have been developed that enable access to the heart via partial sternotomy for most aortic valve procedures and via sternotomy-free mini-thoracotomy for other procedures.

METHODS

We review the current evidence on minimally invasive cardiac surgery on the basis of pertinent randomized studies and database studies retrieved by a selective search in the MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases, as well as by the Google Scholar search engine.

RESULTS

A PubMed search employing the search term "minimally invasive cardiac surgery" yielded nearly 10 000 hits, among which there were 7 prospective, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on aortic valve replacement, with a total of 477 patients, and 3 RCTs on mitral valve surgery, with a total of 340 patients. Only limited reports of specified centers are currently available for multiple valvular procedures and multiple coronary artery bypass procedures. The RCTs reveal that the minimally invasive techniques are associated with fewer wound infections and faster mobilization, without any difference in survival. Minimally invasive procedures are technically demanding and have certain anatomical prerequisites, such as appropriate coronary morphology for multiple bypass operations and the position of the aorta in the chest for sternotomy-free aortic valve procedures. The articles reviewed here were presumably affected by selection bias, in that patients in the published studies were preselected, and there may have been negative studies that were not published at all.

CONCLUSION

Specialized surgeons and centers can now carry out many cardiac valvular and bypass operations via minithoracotomy rather than sternotomy. According to current evidence, these minimally invasive techniques yield results that are at least as good as classic open-heart surgery.