Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
Short-Term Outcomes of Partial Upper Ministernotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement Within the Learning Curve Context.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Toporcer Tomáš, Homola Marián, Bereš Anton, Trebišovský Michal, Lopuchovský Tomáš, Mižáková Štefánia, Vajda Lukáš, Lukačín Štefan, Kolesár Adrián
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In recent decades, aortic valve surgery has transitioned from conventional median sternotomy (MS) to minimally invasive techniques, including partial upper mini-sternotomy (PUMS) and right anterolateral mini-thoracotomy (RAMT). This study retrospectively compares the outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) using PUMS during the learning phase with those of standard MS.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients (n = 211) who underwent AVR for aortic stenosis. They were divided into MS (n = 119) and PUMS (n = 92) groups. Various preoperative, surgical and postoperative parameters, including survival, were examined.
RESULTS: Preoperatively, the main difference was age, with PUMS patients being older (67.5 ± 7 vs. 66.5 ± 9.6; p = 0.010). PUMS patients also had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamping times (99 ± 25 vs. 80 ± 16 min; p < 0.002; 79 ± 18 vs. 65 ± 13 min; p < 0.024). There were no significant differences in body mass index, prosthesis size, indexed effective orifice area, hospitalisation duration or any other monitored parameter. Echocardiographic follow-up found no differences in prosthetic pressure gradients, flow velocity or paravalvular leak between the PUMS and MS groups. Survival rates were similar over 1000 days.
CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that PUMS offers comparable surgical outcomes to MS for AVR with additional cosmetic benefits, undeterred by a learning curve.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients (n = 211) who underwent AVR for aortic stenosis. They were divided into MS (n = 119) and PUMS (n = 92) groups. Various preoperative, surgical and postoperative parameters, including survival, were examined.
RESULTS: Preoperatively, the main difference was age, with PUMS patients being older (67.5 ± 7 vs. 66.5 ± 9.6; p = 0.010). PUMS patients also had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamping times (99 ± 25 vs. 80 ± 16 min; p < 0.002; 79 ± 18 vs. 65 ± 13 min; p < 0.024). There were no significant differences in body mass index, prosthesis size, indexed effective orifice area, hospitalisation duration or any other monitored parameter. Echocardiographic follow-up found no differences in prosthetic pressure gradients, flow velocity or paravalvular leak between the PUMS and MS groups. Survival rates were similar over 1000 days.
CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that PUMS offers comparable surgical outcomes to MS for AVR with additional cosmetic benefits, undeterred by a learning curve.