Article

Comparison of 3 different incisions used for atrial-septal defect closure.

Goztepe Safak Hospital, Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic, Istanbul, Turkey.
Heart Surgery Forum (Impact Factor: 0.56). 02/2008; 11(5):E290-4. DOI: 10.1532/HSF98.20081060
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Surgical closure of atrial-septal defects is now associated with low morbidity and mortality rates. We assessed surgical, cosmetic, and psychological results of 3 different surgical approaches to atrial-septal defect repair.
Study participants were 82 patients who underwent surgery for atrial-septal defect. Mean age was 21 +/- 8 years, and the female:male ratio was 23:59. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the incision used; group 1 (n = 26), partial lower sternotomy; group 2 (n = 34), right anterolateral thoracotomy via a submammary incision, and group 3 (n = 22), conventional median sternotomy.
There was no operative or late mortality. No significant differences between groups were associated with the surgical technique used. Direct closure was the procedure of choice performed in 53 patients (64.6%). In the remaining patients the repair was performed with a pericardial patch (29 patients, 35.4%). One patient in group 1 required conversion to median sternotomy because transoesophageal echocardiography performed at the operating theater revealed a partial anomalous pulmonary venous connection of right pulmonary veins to the inferior vena cava. This patient was excluded from the study group. All patients were symptom free postoperatively, and control echocardiography revealed a trivial shunt in only 1 patient, with a Qp:Qs ratio of 1.3. Rhythm abnormalities, including atrioventricular block, atrial fibrillation, and flutter, were observed in 7 patients but were found to be unrelated to the surgical incision (P = .3). Cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and operative times were longer with minimally invasive approaches; but these differences were not statistically significant. Intensive care unit and hospital stay periods were significantly shorter in groups 1 and 2. During the postoperative follow-up period, patients in groups 1 and 2 showed superior results in satisfaction with their cosmetic outcomes.
With the development of minimally invasive techniques that yield surgical results comparable to those of standard techniques, surgeons have changed their focus from survival to cosmetic and psychological outcomes, especially in the repair of simple cardiac defects. Operations performed via limited skin incisions are surgically safe and provide superior cosmetic and psychological results.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
105 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In this study, cardiac surgery with minimally invasive reversed C sternotomy was compared with conventional sternotomy in patients undergoing valve replacement or septal defect repair.Methods In this prospective randomized study, 35 patients were assigned into one of two groups for elective cardiac surgery under general anesthesia: Group A (reversed C sternotomy group) and Group B (conventional sternotomy group). Intraoperative variables, intubation time, postoperative drainage volume, pulmonary function tests, sleep quality and quality of life, and requirement for blood transfusion were compared.Results A significant difference between the two groups was found in blood transfusion requirement, extubation time, and drainage volume. Forced expiratory volume in one second and functional vital capacity were significantly lower in Group B than in Group A at postoperative Month 1. Total sleep component score of Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index in Group B patients was significantly worse at postoperative Month 1. Postoperative assessment of quality of life (physical and mental) also showed a significant difference between the two groups.Conclusion These preliminary findings suggest that creating an access point without compromising the integrity of the sternum seems to be an advantageous and appropriate technique for suitable patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
    The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon 01/2013; · 0.93 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download
Available from