Article citationsMore>>

Christiansen, S., Stypmann, J., Tjan, T.D., Wichter, T., Van Aken, H., Scheld, H.H., et al. (1999) Minimally-Invasive versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement—Perioperative Course and Mid-Term Results. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 16, 647-652.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(99)00333-4

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement with Partial Lower Sternotomy

  AUTHORS: Keisuke Morimoto, Shigeto Miyasaka, Suguru Shiraya, Futoshi Kobayashi

  KEYWORDS: Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery (MICS), Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR), Partial Sternotomy

  JOURNAL NAME: World Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol.8 No.6, June 15, 2018

  ABSTRACT: Objectives: Due to recent spread of minimally invasive surgery, the demand for minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) is increasing. We investigate the usefulness of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MICS-AVR) which was performed in our hospital. Methods: Of 63 consecutive patients undergone an isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), 16 patients underwent MICS-AVR with partial lower sternotomy (M group) and 47 patients underwent AVR with median full sternotomy (C group). We compared the two groups in a retrospective study. Results: No significant difference was found in the surgical and perioperative-related factors between the two groups. However, the average of aortic cross-clamping time was longer, and intensive and high care unit stay was shorter in the M group. A tendency to decrease blood transfusion was observed in the M group. There was no hospital death in all patients. The mean follow-up period was 29 ± 15 months. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the survival rate, and the 5-year survival rates were 88.9% in the M group and 85.9% in the C group. Conclusion: It was suggested that the MICS-AVR could be safe and useful procedure in AVR.