Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum ('median sternotomy') and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is well tolerated, but as less invasive options become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access have raised safety concerns with regard to the placement of cannulae, venting of the heart, epicardial wire placement, and de-airing of the heart at the end of the procedure. These difficulties may increase operating times, affecting outcome. The benefits of smaller incisions are thought to include decreased pain; improved respiratory mechanics; reductions in wound infections, bleeding, and need for transfusion; shorter intensive care stay; better cosmesis; and a quicker return to normal activity. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2017, with seven new studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy in people with aortic valve disease requiring surgical replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from inception to August 2021, with no language limitations. We also searched two clinical trials registries and manufacturers' websites. We reviewed references of primary studies to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing aortic valve replacement via a median sternotomy versus aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy. We excluded trials that performed other minimally invasive incisions such as mini-thoracotomies, port access, transapical, transfemoral or robotic procedures. Although some well-conducted prospective and retrospective case-control and cohort studies exist, these were not included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial papers to extract data, assess quality, and identify risk of bias. A third review author provided arbitration where required. We determined the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology and summarised results of patient-relevant outcomes in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 14 trials with 1395 participants. Most studies had at least two domains at high risk of bias. We analysed 14 outcomes investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy. Upper hemi-sternotomy may have little to no effect on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.94; 10 studies, 985 participants; low-certainty evidence). Upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement may increase cardiopulmonary bypass time slightly, although the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 10.63 minutes, 95% CI 3.39 to 17.88; 10 studies, 1043 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and may increase aortic cross-clamp time slightly (MD 6.07 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 11.35; 12 studies, 1235 participants; very low-certainty evidence), although the evidence is very uncertain. Most studies had at least two domains at high risk of bias. Postoperative blood loss was probably lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -153 mL, 95% CI -246 to -60; 8 studies, 767 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.04; 5 studies, 649 participants). Upper hemi-sternotomy may result in little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.03 higher, 95% CI 0 to 0.06 higher; 4 studies, 624 participants; low-certainty evidence). Two studies reporting index admission costs concluded that limited sternotomy may be more costly at index admission in the UK National Health Service (MD 1190 GBP more, 95% CI 420 GBP to 1970 GBP, 2 studies, 492 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was of very low to moderate certainty. Sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in some outcomes. Clinical heterogeneity was also noted. Considering these limitations, there may be little to no effect on mortality. Differences in extracorporeal support times are uncertain, comparing upper hemi-sternotomy to full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from also performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality of life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.

Novel concept of less invasive concomitant surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting avoiding full median sternotomy

In the last decades, minimally invasive procedures have been developed in the therapy of aortic valve disorders. Recently, a novel concept of minimally invasive coronary revascularization in multivessel disease via left anterior mini-thoracotomy demonstrated promising results. Full median sternotomy, as a very invasive procedure, is the standard approach in concomitant surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) and coronary bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of our study was to show that the combination of minimal invasive aortic valve replacement via upper mini-sternotomy and coronary artery bypass grafting via left anterior mini-thoracotomy is feasible to avoid full median sternotomy. From 07/2022 to 09/2022, concomitant sAVR via upper partial sternotomy and CABG via left anterior mini-thoractomy on cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest was successfully performed in six consecutive patients (6 males; 69.8 ± 7.4 [60-79] years). All patients had severe aortic stenosis (MPG 45.5 ± 17.3 mmHg) and a significant coronary artery disease (three-vessel: 33%, two-vessel: 33%, one-vessel: 33%) with indication to cardiac surgery. Mean EuroScore2 was 3.2. All patients underwent successful less invasive concomitant biological sAVR and CABG. 67% of patients received a 25 mm, 33% received a 23 mm biological aortic valve replacement (Edwards Lifesciences Perimount). A total of 11 distal anastomoses (1.8 ± 1.0 [1-3] per patient) were performed by using left internal artery mammary (50%), radial artery (17%) and saphenous venous graft (67%) for grafting the left anterior descending (83%), circumflex (67%) and right (33%) coronary artery. Hospital mortality was 0%, stroke rate was 0%, myocardial infarction was 0% and repeat revascularization rate was 0%, ICU stay was 1 day in 83% of all patients and 50% left hospital within 8 days after surgery. Less invasive concomitant surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting using upper mini-sternotomy and left anterior mini-thoracotomy is feasible without compromises in surgical principles and complete coronary revascularization while maintaining thoracic stability by avoiding full median sternotomy.

Totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement: Techniques and early results

Objective

To demonstrate the technical details of total endoscopic aortic valve replacement using a standard prosthesis, compare the clinical effect and safety of endoscopic aortic valve replacement and traditional aortic valve replacement.

Methods

From 2020 to 2021, 60 consecutive patients underwent elective isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). They were divided into two groups: the total endoscopic AVR group (TE-AVR group, 29 patients, nine women, aged 51.65 ± 11.79 years), and the traditional full-sternotomy group (AVR group, 31 patients, 13 women, aged 54.23 ± 12.06 years). Three working ports were adopted in the TE-AVR procedure.

Results

No patient died in either group. The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time in the TE-AVR group were longer than those in the AVR group (CPB time: 177.6 ± 43.2 vs. 112.1 ± 18.1 min, p < 0.001; ACC time: 118.3 ± 29.7 vs. 67.0 ± 13.2 min, p < 0.001). However, the mechanical ventilation duration (14.2 ± 9.3 vs. 24.0 ± 18.9 h, p = 0.015) and postoperative hospital stay (6.0 ± 1.7 vs. 8.0 ± 4.5 days, p = 0.025) were shorter in patients of TE-AVR group than those of AVR group. Although the ICU stay (55.1 ± 26.9 vs. 61.5 ± 44.8 h, p = 0.509) and post-operative chest drainage of the first 24 h (229.8 ± 125.0 vs. 273.2 ± 103.2 ml, p = 0.146) revealed no statistical difference, there was a decreasing trend in the TE-AVR group. Among the patients of the TE-AVR group, two patients were converted to thoracotomy because of mild to moderate paravalvular leakage identified by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography.

Conclusion

Total endoscopic aortic valve replacement is safe and feasible, with less trauma and quicker recovery.

Primary Minimally Invasive Repair with Atriopericardial Anastomosis Technique for Pulmonary Vein Stenosis after Catheter Ablation

A pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis is a rare adverse event associated with catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, which can potentially impair quality of life. Although percutaneous PV angioplasty is performed as the initial treatment of choice, the incidence of restenosis is reported to be considerably high. Herein, we describe a successful case of severe PV stenosis treated by primary surgical repair using the atriopericardial anastomosis technique via right minithoracotomy.

Clinical study of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a right parasternal second intercostal transverse incision: The first Chinese experience

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing demand for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through a right parasternal second intercostal transverse incision.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study, and we collected information from 111 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement surgery performed by the same surgeon from January 2018 to December 2019. According to the operative approach, the patients were divided into a sternotomy aortic valve replacement (SAVR) group (n = 62) and a minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (Mini-AVR) group (n = 49). We compared the intraoperative and postoperative data between the two groups.

RESULT

There was no difference in preoperative data between the Mini-AVR and SAVR. The postoperative ventilator-assisted time, CSICU time and postoperative hospital stay of the Mini-AVR were shorter than those of the SAVR [(15.45 ± 5.75) VS (18.51 ± 6.71) h; (1.77 ± 0.31) VS (2.04 ± 0.63) d; (8.69 ± 2.75) VS (10.77 ± 2.94) d], and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Mini-AVR had lower postoperative drainage and blood transfusion rates in the first 24 h than SAVR [(109.86 ± 125.98) VS (508.84 ± 311.70) ml; 22.4% VS 46.8%], and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative AF in the Mini-AVR group was also lower than that in the SAVR group (10.2% VS 30.6%), and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Mini-AVR has the advantages of less ventilator time, a reduced need for blood transfusion, less AF and a faster recovery. Mini-AVR is a safe and feasible surgical technique that is worthy of clinical application.

Aortic valve approaches in the era of minimally invasive cardiac surgery

The concept of minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been gradually adopted world-wide since its inception more than 2 decades ago. Recently, catheter intervention has been used in the treatment of structural heart disease. Most notably, minimally invasive transcatheter aortic valve implantation is now an established treatment option for aortic valve stenosis. There are three major approaches for minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: via median sternotomy, via the parasternal approach, and via the thoracotomy approach. All these approaches allow for a small skin incision and/or avoid full sternotomy. Moreover, several advanced variations with additional aortic procedures or totally endoscopic management have been developed. When considering each approach, low invasiveness must be balanced with safety, as surgeons broaden their insight of advanced medicine. Physical invasiveness is largely related to the surgical approach in minimally invasive surgery. We review the history and evolution of the different surgical approaches for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.

Aortic Valve Replacement: Treatment by Sternotomy versus Minimally Invasive Approach

Objective

To compare the results of aortic valve replacement with access by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of medical records of 37 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach, with emphasis on the comparison of time of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamping, volume of surgical bleeding, time of mechanical ventilation, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge, short-term mortality and presence of surgical wound infection.

Results

Sternotomy was used in 22 patients and minimally invasive surgery in 15 patients. The minimally invasive approach had significantly higher time values of cardiopulmonary bypass (114.3±23.9 versus 86.7±19.8min.; P=0.003), aortic clamping (87.4±19.2 versus 61.4±12.9 min.; P<0.001) and mechanical ventilation (287.3±138.9 versus 153.9±118.6 min.; P=0.003). No difference was found in outcomes surgical bleeding volume, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit and time of hospital discharge. No cases of short-term mortality or surgical wound infection were documented.

Conclusion

The less invasive approach presented with longer times of cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamping and mechanical ventilation than sternotomy, however without prejudice to the length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge and morbidity.

Prevention of Pulmonary Edema after Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery with Mini-Thoracotomy Using Neutrophil Elastase Inhibitor

PURPOSE

Unilateral re-expansion pulmonary edema (RPE) is a rare but one of the most critical complications that may occur after re-expansion of a collapsed lung after minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) with mini-thoracotomy.

METHODS

We performed a total of 40 consecutive patients with MICS by right mini-thoracotomy with single-lung ventilation between January 2013 and June 2016. We divided the patients into control group (n = 13) and neutrophil elastase inhibitor group (n = 27). Neutrophil elastase inhibitor group received continuous intravenous infusion of neutrophil elastase inhibitor at 0.2-0.25 mg/kg per hour from the start of anesthesia until extubation during the perioperative period.

RESULTS

There were no relations with operative time, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, aortic clamp time, and intraoperative water valances for postoperative mechanical ventilation support time. Compared with the neutrophil elastase inhibitor group, the control group had significantly higher initial alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient and significantly lower initial ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen at the intensive care unit (ICU). The control group had significantly longer postoperative mechanical ventilation support time and hospital stay compared with the neutrophil elastase inhibitor group.

CONCLUSIONS

Neutrophil elastase inhibitor may have beneficial effects against RPE after MICS with mini-thoracotomy.

Changes in the amount of physical activity in minimally invasive cardiac surgery

[Purpose] This study aimed to compare the amount of physical activity in a minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) group with that in a conventional surgery (median sternotomy) group. [Subjects and Methods] Between November 2010 and December 2011, 39 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for valvular disease were prospectively enrolled. The amount of physical activity before and after surgery was measured in 22 cases. The daily in-hospital physical activity level was measured continuously using a triaxial accelerometer. The results were compared in terms of change in the amount of physical activity pre- and postoperatively. [Results] There was no significant difference between the two groups in the amount of physical activity before surgery. However, the amount of physical activity after surgery was significantly higher in the MICS group compared with the conventional surgery group. The number of steps after surgery was significantly increased in the MICS group, and the rate of change in the amount of physical activity was significantly higher in the MICS group than that in the conventional surgery group. [Conclusion] The MICS approach is associated with improvement in postoperative physical activity over median sternotomy.

Limited versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic valve disease is a common condition that is easily treatable with cardiac surgery. This is conventionally performed by opening the sternum longitudinally down the centre ("median sternotomy") and replacing the valve under cardiopulmonary bypass. Median sternotomy is generally well tolerated, but as less invasive options have become available, the efficacy of limited incisions has been called into question. In particular, the effects of reducing the visibility and surgical access has raised safety concerns with regards to the placement of cannulae, venting of the heart, epicardial wire placement, and de-airing of the heart at the end of the procedure. These difficulties may increase operating times, affecting outcome. The benefits of smaller incisions are thought to include decreased pain; improved respiratory mechanics; reductions in wound infections, bleeding, and need for transfusion; shorter intensive care stay; better cosmesis; and a quicker return to normal activity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement via median sternotomy in people with aortic valve disease requiring surgical replacement.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, clinical trials registries, and manufacturers' websites from inception to July 2016, with no language limitations. We reviewed references of identified papers to identify any further studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing aortic valve replacement via a median sternotomy versus aortic valve replacement via a limited sternotomy. We excluded trials that performed other minimally invasive incisions such as mini-thoracotomies, port access, trans-apical, trans-femoral or robotic procedures. Although some well-conducted prospective and retrospective case-control and cohort studies exist, these were not included in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial papers to extract data, assess quality, and identify risk of bias. A third review author provided arbitration where required. The quality of evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology and results of patient-relevant outcomes were summarised in a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included seven trials with 511 participants. These included adults from centres in Austria, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, and Egypt. We performed 12 comparisons investigating the effects of minimally invasive limited upper hemi-sternotomy on aortic valve replacement as compared to surgery performed via full median sternotomy.There was no evidence of any effect of upper hemi-sternotomy on mortality versus full median sternotomy (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.82; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no evidence of an increase in cardiopulmonary bypass time with aortic valve replacement performed via an upper hemi-sternotomy (mean difference (MD) 3.02 minutes, 95% CI -4.10 to 10.14; participants = 311; studies = 5; low quality). There was no evidence of an increase in aortic cross-clamp time (MD 0.95 minutes, 95% CI -3.45 to 5.35; participants = 391; studies = 6; low quality). None of the included studies reported major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite end point.There was no evidence of an effect on length of hospital stay through limited hemi-sternotomy (MD -1.31 days, 95% CI -2.63 to 0.01; participants = 297; studies = 5; I2 = 89%; very low quality). Postoperative blood loss was lower in the upper hemi-sternotomy group (MD -158.00 mL, 95% CI -303.24 to -12.76; participants = 297; studies = 5; moderate quality). The evidence did not support a reduction in deep sternal wound infections (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.30; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality) or re-exploration (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.13; participants = 511; studies = 7; moderate quality). There was no change in pain scores by upper hemi-sternotomy (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.33, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.20; participants = 197; studies = 3; I2 = 70%; very low quality), but there was a small increase in postoperative pulmonary function tests with minimally invasive limited sternotomy (MD 1.98 % predicted FEV1, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.33; participants = 257; studies = 4; I2 = 28%; low quality). There was a small reduction in length of intensive care unit stays as a result of the minimally invasive upper hemi-sternotomy (MD -0.57 days, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.20; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). Postoperative atrial fibrillation was not reduced with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through limited compared to full sternotomy (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.07 to 4.89; participants = 240; studies = 3; moderate quality), neither were postoperative ventilation times (MD -1.12 hours, 95% CI -3.43 to 1.19; participants = 297; studies = 5; low quality). None of the included studies reported cost analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence in this review was assessed as generally low to moderate quality. The study sample sizes were small and underpowered to demonstrate differences in outcomes with low event rates. Clinical heterogeneity both between and within studies is a relatively fixed feature of surgical trials, and this also contributed to the need for caution in interpreting results.Considering these limitations, there was uncertainty of the effect on mortality or extracorporeal support times with upper hemi-sternotomy for aortic valve replacement compared to full median sternotomy. The evidence to support a reduction in total hospital length of stay or intensive care stay was low in quality. There was also uncertainty of any difference in the rates of other, secondary outcome measures or adverse events with minimally invasive limited sternotomy approaches to aortic valve replacement.There appears to be uncertainty between minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via upper hemi-sternotomy and conventional aortic valve replacement via a full median sternotomy. Before widespread adoption of the minimally invasive approach can be recommended, there is a need for a well-designed and adequately powered prospective randomised controlled trial. Such a study would benefit from performing a robust cost analysis. Growing patient preference for minimally invasive techniques merits thorough quality-of-life analyses to be included as end points, as well as quantitative measures of physiological reserve.

Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement

With the advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and the emergence of rapid deployment aortic valves, there is a resurgent interest in minimizing the trauma of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). The present review summarizes the history of minimal access AVR and attempts to collate the existing evidence regarding minimal access AVR.

A comparison of aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy with standard sternotomy: a propensity score analysis of 492 patients

OBJECTIVES

Right anterior minithoracotomy with central arterial cannulation is our preferred technique of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (AVR). We compared perioperative outcomes with this technique to those via sternotomy.

METHODS

Between March 1999 and December 2013, 492 patients underwent isolated AVR via either sternotomy (SAVR, n = 198) or minimally invasive right anterior thoracotomy (MIAVR, n = 294) in our institution. Univariate comparisons between groups were made to evaluate overall outcomes and adverse events. To control treatment selection bias, propensity scores were constructed from core patient characteristics. A propensity score-stratified analysis of outcome and adverse events was then performed.

RESULTS

Overall mortality was 2.5 and 1.0% in the SAVR and MIAVR groups, respectively. Hospital and ICU stays were shorter, there was less intraoperative blood product usage, and fewer wound infections in the MIAVR group. There were no differences in other adverse events, including strokes. The composite end-point of alive and adverse event-free was significantly more common in the MIAVR group (83 vs 74%, P = 0.002). After adjusting for the propensity score, hospital and ICU stays remained shorter and intraoperative blood product usage remained less in the MIAVR group. There was no difference in mortality, stroke or other adverse events between groups.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive AVR via an anterior right thoracotomy with predominately central cannulation can be performed with morbidity and mortality similar to that of a sternotomy approach. There appear to be advantages to this minimally invasive approach when compared with sternotomy in terms of less intraoperative blood product usage, lower wound infection rates and decreased hospital stays. If mortality and the occurrence of adverse events are taken together, MIAVR may be associated with better outcomes. As minimally invasive AVR becomes more common, further long-term follow-up is needed and a prospective multicentre randomized trial would be warranted.

Anterolateral approach for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Right anterior thoracotomy is the most common approach of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) via intercostal mini-thoracotomy. However, there are some disadvantages including sacrificing the right internal thoracic artery (RITA). The aim of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of anterolateral thoracotomy (ALT), which is similar to lateral thoracotomy used for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery, for MIAVR.

METHODS

From October 2012 to June 2013, 21 patients underwent MIAVR through ALT. Perioperative outcome of these patients was compared with those of 59 patients who underwent MIAVR via standard anterior thoracotomy (SAT) from May 2007 to September 2012.

RESULTS

Mean age, body surface area, annular size, the ratio of aortic stenosis, and Japan score (30 days mortality), in ALT group were significantly more severe than those in SAT group. There was no significant difference in operative time; however, cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamping times in ALT group were significantly longer than those in SAT group. Significant differences were not found in mortality, morbidity, intubation time, blood transfusion rate, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay, and echocardiographic data such as effective orifice area index between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterolateral approach has several advantages including no need to sacrifice the RITA and cosmetic benefit in female patients, offering similar results as SAT even with more severe patient characteristics.

Minimally invasive surgery for aortic stenosis in the geriatric patient: where are we now?

Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery has evolved with time and become the routine approach for aortic surgery in select surgical centers. The success of these procedures in the nonelderly has led some to embark on using minimal access techniques in the geriatric population as well. With the geriatric community often inflicted with the greatest disease burden, suffering not only from a valvular process but also cumulative comorbidities, geriatric patients may be the patients most likely to derive benefit from a minimally invasive approach. Alternative therapies for symptomatic aortic stenosis include conventional full-sternotomy aortic valve replacement in addition to transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages. The role of minimal access aortic valve surgery and its impact on the progressively aging population in the face of conventional surgery and transcatheter technology is discussed.