Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026
Axillary Versus Sternotomy Access in Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Almehandi Abdullah, Ramadhan Mohammed, Ali Yahya, Almhanedi Abdulaziz, Al-Naseem Abdulrahman Osama, Gonnah Ahmad, Awad Ahmad, Fischer Johannes, Kirov Hristo, Doenst Torsten, Nazer Rakan I, Caldonazo Tulio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery for mitral valve (MV) disease is a rising strategy. Axillary access is linked to reduced pain and faster recovery, but its efficacy and safety compared with median sternotomy for MV surgery (MVS) remain unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes of MVS via axillary access and median sternotomy.
METHODS: Four databases were analyzed. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times, rethoracotomy, wound complications, mechanical ventilation duration, stroke, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and residual moderate mitral regurgitation. A random-effects model was used.
RESULTS: We included 2,129 patients from 4 studies, with 1,135 (53.3%) undergoing axillary access. Perioperative mortality was comparable between approaches (odds ratio [OR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09 to 1.23, P = 0.10). Axillary access was associated with longer CPB times (mean difference [MD] = 16.38, 95% CI: 6.42 to 26.34, P = 0.001), fewer wound complications (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80, P = 0.009), shorter ventilation time (MD = -4.93, 95% CI: -8.79 to -1.08, P < 0.01), and shorter hospital (MD = -0.78, 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.14, P = 0.02) and ICU stays (MD = -10.84, 95% CI: -19.54 to -2.14, P = 0.01). No difference was found in cross-clamp time, rethoracotomy, stroke, or residual mitral regurgitation.
CONCLUSIONS: Axillary access for MVS shows comparable mortality to median sternotomy, with benefits in wound complications, ventilation, and recovery but longer CPB times. Further research is needed to confirm long-term safety and efficacy.
METHODS: Four databases were analyzed. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times, rethoracotomy, wound complications, mechanical ventilation duration, stroke, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and residual moderate mitral regurgitation. A random-effects model was used.
RESULTS: We included 2,129 patients from 4 studies, with 1,135 (53.3%) undergoing axillary access. Perioperative mortality was comparable between approaches (odds ratio [OR] = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09 to 1.23, P = 0.10). Axillary access was associated with longer CPB times (mean difference [MD] = 16.38, 95% CI: 6.42 to 26.34, P = 0.001), fewer wound complications (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80, P = 0.009), shorter ventilation time (MD = -4.93, 95% CI: -8.79 to -1.08, P < 0.01), and shorter hospital (MD = -0.78, 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.14, P = 0.02) and ICU stays (MD = -10.84, 95% CI: -19.54 to -2.14, P = 0.01). No difference was found in cross-clamp time, rethoracotomy, stroke, or residual mitral regurgitation.
CONCLUSIONS: Axillary access for MVS shows comparable mortality to median sternotomy, with benefits in wound complications, ventilation, and recovery but longer CPB times. Further research is needed to confirm long-term safety and efficacy.