| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:1101-1105
© 1998 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
a Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas, USA
Address reprint requests to Dr Cooley, Texas Heart Institute, PO Box 20345, Houston, TX 77225-0345
e-mail: (dcooley{at}biost1.thi.tmc.edu)
Presented at "Facts and Myths of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: Current Trends in Thoracic Surgery IV," New Orleans, LA, Jan 24, 1998.
Abstract
As a result of reports touting the effectiveness of minimally invasive valve operations, many cardiovascular surgeons and their patients are beginning to believe that smaller incisions are always better. According to its proponents, the minimally invasive approach results in less pain, a faster recovery, and a more satisfactory cosmetic result. Proponents also believe that the operation can be done safely and effectively at a lower cost than traditional surgical approaches. This may not be the case, however, and additional prospective studies must be done before firm conclusions can be drawn. For example, cardiopulmonary bypass, myocardial ischemia, and overall operative times are significantly longer (40% or more) for minimally invasive surgical procedures. Morbidity and mortality rates do not appear to be decreased, the length of hospital stay varies by only 1 or 2 days, and patients do not necessarily report less postoperative pain. When the conventional technique is used, the operation can be performed precisely and expeditiously. Should complications occur, the surgeon will have direct access to the heart. The cost of a conventional procedure should not be much more than that of a minimally invasive procedure, and in some instances it may even be less—particularly when the less invasive procedure significantly extends the operating room time or requires additional monitors or costly disposables.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  I. Bakir, F. P. Casselman, F. Wellens, H. Jeanmart, R. De Geest, I. Degrieck, F. Van Praet, Y. Vermeulen, and H. Vanermen Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2006; 81(5): 1599 - 1604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H.-S. Sun, W.-G. Ma, J.-P. Xu, L.-Z. Sun, F. Lu, and X.-D. Zhu Minimal Access Heart Surgery via Lower Ministernotomy: Experience in 460 Cases Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann, April 1, 2006; 14(2): 109 - 113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Weissman Pulmonary Complications After Cardiac Surgery Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, September 1, 2004; 8(3): 185 - 211. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Luo, C. Chang, and S. Chen Ministernotomy versus full sternotomy in congenital heart defects: a prospective randomized study Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2001; 71(2): 473 - 475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Sun, J. Zheng, Q. Chang, Y. Tang, J. Feng, X. Sun, and X. Zhu Aortic root replacement by ministernotomy: technique and potential benefit Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2000; 70(6): 1958 - 1961. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Schneider, J.-F. Onnasch, V. Falk, T. Walther, R. Autschbach, and F. W. Mohr Cerebral microemboli during minimally invasive and conventional mitral valve operations Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2000; 70(3): 1094 - 1097. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Ehrlich, W. Skwara, W.-P. Klovekorn, M. Roth, and E. P. Bauer Do patients want minimally invasive aortic valve replacement? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., June 1, 2000; 17(6): 714 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. F. Szwerc, D. H. Benckart, R. J. Wiechmann, E. B. Savage, G. W. Szydlowski, G. J. Magovern Jr, and J. A. Magovern Partial versus full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 1999; 68(6): 2209 - 2213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. K. von Segesser, S. Westaby, J. Pomar, D. Loisance, P. Groscurth, and M. Turina Less invasive aortic valve surgery: rationale and technique Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., June 1, 1999; 15(6): 781 - 785. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. N. Olinger Informed advice Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 1999; 67(6): 1545 - 1546. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Aris, M. L. Camara, J. Montiel, L. J. Delgado, J. Galan, and H. Litvan Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 1999; 67(6): 1583 - 1587. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.W. Mohr, J.F. Onnasch, V. Falk, T. Walther, A. Diegeler, R. Krakor, F. Schneider, and R. Autschbach The evolution of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery - 2 year experience Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 1999; 15(3): 233 - 239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |
