Open vs. Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: Surgical Technique, Indications and Results

Abstract

Minimally invasive procedures are the standard approach in many centres but are still under debate in regards of inferiority compared to conventional mitral valve surgery through a median sternotomy. The aim of this review was to summarize the current literature comparing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIVS) and conventional mitral valve surgery. In this review of the current literature, we summarize our findings from a recent meta-analysis and add information from papers that were published afterwards. There were no differences between patients treated minimally invasive or through a conventional sternotomy approach in regards of perioperative stroke rate and mortality. Procedural time, cardio-pulmonary-bypass time and cross-clamp time were longer in the MIVS group. In contrast, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and length of in hospital stay were significantly reduced in this group. Need for blood transfusion was lower in the MIVS group. Other outcomes like i.e., the rate of rethoracotomies or renal failure didn't differ between the groups. Repair rates and long-term freedom from recurrence of mitral regurgitation and reoperation are similar. Newer publications underline these findings. The current literature shows that MIVS and conventional mitral valve surgery show a similar perioperative outcome. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is favourable with regards to ICU stay, in hospital stay as well as need for blood transfusion.