Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement

  • Marco SolinasEmail author
  • Giacomo Bianchi


Valvular heart disease epidemiology has been dramatically chanced over the past decades in developed nations, mainly due to the decreased prevalence of rheumatic heart disease.

Due to this growing number of cases and the necessity to reduce the surgical trauma, numerous alternative incisions to the median sternotomy were evaluated. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery is now most commonly performed via a limited skin incision, with a partial upper sternotomy that extends into the third or fourth intercostal space (also known as a ‘J’-sternotomy or reversed-L-shaped sternotomy). Right anterior thoracotomy (RAMT) for aortic valve replacement (AVR) represents a further step towards reduced invasiveness and functional operations. In our Center, RAMT was adopted after a 10-year-long program of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery, from which we redeployed technical skill and technological instrumentation.

In our view, RAMT can be adopted after careful patients’ selection, integrating clinical and imaging data that we discuss in this chapter; operative details are also described since those are the critical keypoints of the procedure itself. Furthermore, the advent of rapid deployment and sutureless valves favoured the spread of this approach; in our CUSUM analysis a clear absence of the learning curve was found when surgeons are proctored, due to a “transmitted learning” effect.


  1. 1.
    Nkomo VT, et al. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet. 2006;368:1005–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Casula RP. Minimal access aortic valve surgery. In: Inderbitzi, editor. Minimally invasive thoracic and cardiac surgery. Berlin: Springer; 2012.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown JM, et al. Isolated aortic valve replacement in north america comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the society of thoracic surgeons national database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:82–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cosgrove DM 3rd, Sabik JF, Navia JL. Minimally invasive valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:1535–1538.; discussion 1538–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Svensson LG, D’Agostino RS. “j” incision minimal-access valve operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:1110–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rao PN, Kumar AS. Aortic valve replacement through right thoracotomy. Tex Heart Inst J. 1993;20:307–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benetti FJ, Mariani MA, Rizzardi JL, Benetti I. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997;113:806–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ammar R, Porat E, Eisenberg DS, Uretzky G. Utility of spiral ct in minimally invasive approach for aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1998;14(Suppl 1):S130–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gilmanov D, et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: 12-year single center experience. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:160–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Concistrè G, Farneti P, Miceli A, Glauber M. Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis in severe aortic root calcification: an innovative approach. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;14:670–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lio A, Scafuri A, Nicolò F, Chiariello L. Valve replacement with a sutureless aortic prosthesis in a patient with concomitant mitral valve disease and severe aortic root calcification. Tex Heart Inst J. 2016;43:186–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nguyen A, et al. Sutureless aortic valve replacement in patients who have bicuspid aortic valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150:851–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loor G, Roselli EE. Imaging and minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:62–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Margaryan R, et al. Sutureless aortic valve prosthesis sizing: estimation and prediction using multidetector-row computed tomography. Innovations (Phila). 2015;10:230–5. discussion 235.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wharton G, et al. A minimum dataset for a standard adult transthoracic echocardiogram: a guideline protocol from the british society of echocardiography. Echo Res Pract. 2015;2:G9–G24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stoliński J, et al. Respiratory system function in patients after aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;65(3):182–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilmanov DS, et al. Hybrid treatment for aortic stenosis and cad: minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement and delayed pci. In: 10th International Congress of Update in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery; 2014. p. S61.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saroul C, Keller G, Benaissa M, Lehot JJ. Anesthesia for minimally invasive cardiac procedure. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2011;30(Suppl 1):S38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murzi M, et al. Traversing the learning curve in minimally invasive heart valve surgery: a cumulative analysis of an individual surgeon’s experience with a right minithoracotomy approach for aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:1242–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murzi M, et al. Exploring the learning curve for minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(6):1537–1546.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brown ML, McKellar SH, Sundt TM, Schaff HV. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:670–679.e5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Phan K, Xie A, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:1499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lim JY, et al. Conventional versus minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: pooled analysis of propensity-matched data. J Card Surg. 2015;30:125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Phan K, Zhou JJ, Niranjan N, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. Minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4:15–25.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Borger MA, et al. A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart. 2006;92:1022–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Head SJ, et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1518–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilbring M, Alexiou K, Schumann E, Matschke K, Tugtekin SM. Isolated aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic annulus-a high-risk group on long-term follow-up. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;61:379–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shrestha M, et al. Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: are sutureless valves the future? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17:778–82. discussion 782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Athappan G, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1585–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ospedale del Cuore—Fondazione Toscana “G. Monasterio”MassaItaly

Personalised recommendations