Background: The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative outcome obtained in patients undergoing elective aortic valve operation, either through ministernotomy or conventional sternotomy.
Methods: Between January 1999 and July 2001, 80 consecutive patients undergoing elective aortic valve replacement were randomly divided into two groups: group I (n = 40 patients) undergoing a ministernotomy approach (reversed-C or reversed-L), and group II (n = 40 patients) undergoing conventional sternotomy.
Results: The length of skin incision was significantly shorter in group I than in group II (8.2+/-1.3 cm versus 23.7+/-2.6 cm, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in cardiopulmonary bypass duration, associated procedures, or aortic cross-clamping times. Total operating time was 3.7+/-0.46 hours in group I compared with 3.4+/-0.6 hours in group II (p = 0.014). A similar incidence of cardiac, neurologic, infective, and renal complications between groups was found. Mean mediastinal drainage and mean blood transfusions (amount of blood transfused) per patient were greater in group II (p < 0.004 and p < 0.001, respectively). Twenty-five (62.5%) patients in group II and 15 (37.5%) patients in group I required postoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.04). Mechanical ventilation time was significantly longer in group II (6.2+/-1.8 hours versus 4.4+/-0.9 hours, p = 0.006). Five days after the surgical procedure, spirometric data analysis demonstrated a significantly lower total lung capacity and maximum inspiratory and expiratory pressures in group II compared with group I (p = 0.003, p = 0.007, and p < 0.001, respectively).
Conclusions: Our results showed that ministernotomy had not only important cosmetic advantages but also beneficial effects in blood loss and transfusion, postoperative pain, and probably in sternal stability. Ministernotomy also improved recovery of respiratory function and allowed earlier extubation and hospital discharge.