Video-assisted Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery versus Conventional Mitral Surgery in Rheumatic Patients

Ayman Badawy; Mohamed Alaa Nady; Mohamed Ahmed Khalil Salama Ayyad; Ahmed Elminshawy

doi:10.35810/ects.v1i1.113

Ayman Badawy Cardiothoracic Surgery department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
Mohamed Alaa Nady Cardiothoracic Surgery department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
Mohamed Ahmed Khalil Salama Ayyad Cardiothoracic Surgery department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
Ahmed Elminshawy Cardiothoracic Surgery department, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35810/ects.v1i1.113

Keywords: Mitral valve replacement, Minimally invasive surgery, Conventional sternotomy

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery became an attractive option because of its cosmetic advantages over the conventional approach. The superiority of the minimally invasive approach regarding other aspects is still debatable. The aim of our study was to determine the potential benefits of minimally invasive mitral valve replacement with intraoperative video assistance over conventional surgery.

Methods: This is a single-center prospective cohort study that included 60 patients with rheumatic heart disease who underwent mitral valve replacement. Patients were divided into two groups: group (A) included patients who had conventional sternotomy (n= 30), and group (B) included patients who had video-assisted minimally invasive mitral valve replacement (n= 30). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between both groups.

Results: Mortality occurred in one patient in the group (A). Cardiopulmonary bypass time was 118.93 ± 29.84 minutes vs. 64.73 ± 19.16 minutes in group B and A respectively (p< 0.001), and ischemic time was 102.27 ± 30.03 minutes vs. 53.67± 18.46 minutes in group B and A respectively (P < 0.001). Ventilation time was 2.77± 2.27 vs. 6.28 ± 4.48 hours in group B and A respectively (p< 0.001) and blood transfusion was 0.50 ± 0.63 vs. 2.83 ± 1.34 units in group B and A respectively (p< 0.001). ICU stay was 1.73 ± 0.64 days in the group (B) vs. 4.47 ± 0.94 days in group A (p< 0.001). Postoperative bleeding was 353.33 ± 146.77 ml in the group (B) vs. 841.67 ± 302.03 ml in group A (p <0.001). No conversion to full sternotomy was reported in group B. In group (B), two cases (6.6%) required re-exploration for bleeding vs. four cases (13.2%) in group (A) (p=0.67). The hospital stay was 6.13 ± 1.59 days in the group (B) vs. 13.27 ± 7.62 days in group A (p< 0.001). Four cases (13.3%) developed mediastinitis in group A and in the group (B), there was one case of acute right lower limb embolic ischemia.

Conclusion: Video-assisted minimally invasive mitral operations could be a safe alternative to conventional sternotomy with the potential of lesser morbidity and earlier hospital discharge.