Acta chirurgica Belgica · 2004
Operative outcome of minimal access aortic valve replacement versus standard procedure.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Vanoverbeke H, Van Belleghem Y, Francois K, Caes F, Bové T, Van Nooten G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: to determine the advantages and/or risks of minimal access aortic valve replacement compared to standard sternotomy procedure.
METHODS: from January 1997 to December 2001, 271 consecutive adult patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement of which 174 underwent a minimal access procedure (Group 1) and 97 a standard procedure (Group 2). The preoperative variables of both groups were comparable. Retrospective analysis of postoperative outcome was performed.
RESULTS: follow-up was complete and ranged from 6 months to 4 years. Overall in-hospital mortality was 3.3% (respectively 2.8 and 4.1%). No statistical difference was noted regarding operative time variables, mortality rate and hospital stay. There was a significant higher incidence of revision (p = 0.018) and late pericardial effusion (p = 0.022) in the minimal access group. Also trends were in favour of the standard group for incidence of postoperative pneumothorax and pericarditis constrictiva.
CONCLUSIONS: minimal access aortic valve replacement is a safe and reliable technique, but carries the risk of incision-related morbidity. Proper patient selection and perioperative management is mandatory.
METHODS: from January 1997 to December 2001, 271 consecutive adult patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement of which 174 underwent a minimal access procedure (Group 1) and 97 a standard procedure (Group 2). The preoperative variables of both groups were comparable. Retrospective analysis of postoperative outcome was performed.
RESULTS: follow-up was complete and ranged from 6 months to 4 years. Overall in-hospital mortality was 3.3% (respectively 2.8 and 4.1%). No statistical difference was noted regarding operative time variables, mortality rate and hospital stay. There was a significant higher incidence of revision (p = 0.018) and late pericardial effusion (p = 0.022) in the minimal access group. Also trends were in favour of the standard group for incidence of postoperative pneumothorax and pericarditis constrictiva.
CONCLUSIONS: minimal access aortic valve replacement is a safe and reliable technique, but carries the risk of incision-related morbidity. Proper patient selection and perioperative management is mandatory.