Troca valvar aórtica minimamente invasiva: uma alternativa à técnica convencional / Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: an alternative to the conventional technique

OBJETIVO: Demonstrar o uso da cirurgia minimamente invasiva para tratamento da valva aórtica e comparar seus resultados com o método tradicional. MÉTODOS: Entre 2006 e 2011, 60 pacientes foram submetidos à cirurgia na valva aórtica, após consentimento escrito, destes 40 pela técnica minimamente invasiva com acesso por minitoracotomia ântero-lateral direita (Grupo 1/G1)e 20 por esternotomia mediana (Grupo 2/G2). Comparamos os tempos operatórios e a evolução pós-operatória intra-hospitalar. RESULTADOS: Os tempos médios de circulação extracorpórea (CEC) e pinçamento aórtico no G1 foram, respectivamente, 142,7 ± 59,5 min e 88,6 ± 31,5 min e, no G2, 98,1 ± 39,1 min e 67,7 ± 26,2 min (P<0,05), uma diferença nas medianas de 39 minutos no tempo de CEC e 23 minutos no pinçamento aórtico foram observados a favor da técnica convencional. A perda sanguínea pelos drenos torácicos foi significativamente menor no grupo minimamente invasivo: 605,1 ± 679,5 ml (G1) versus 1617 ± 1390 ml (G2) (P<0,05). Os tempos médios de internamento em UTI e hospitalar foram menores em G1: 2,3 ± 1,8 dias e 5,5 ± 5,4 dias versus 5,1 ± 3,6 dias e 10 ± 5,1 dias em G2 (P<0,05), respectivamente. O uso de drogas vasoativas no pós-operatório também foi menor no grupo minimamente invasivo 12,8% em G1 versus 45% em G2. CONCLUSÃO: Troca valvar aórtica com o uso de técnicas minimamente invasivas, apesar de demonstrar maiores tempos intraoperatórios, não afeta os resultados pósoperatórios, que nesta casuística mostraram-se melhores quando comparado ao método tradicional.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the use of minimally invasive surgery for aortic valve replacement and compare your results with the traditional method. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2011 sixty patients underwent surgery on aortic valve, after written consent, these 40 by minimally invasive technique with right anterior minithoracotomy access (Group 1/G1) and 20 by median sternotomy (Group 2/G2). Compare the operating times and postoperative evolution intra-hospital. RESULTS: The average times of bypass and aortic crossclamp in G1 were, respectively, 142.7 ± 59.5 min and 88.6 ± 31.5 min and, in G2, 98.1 ± 39.1 min and 67.7 ± 26.2 min (P < 0.05), a difference in medians of 39 minutes in bypass time and 23 minutes in aortic cross-clamp were observed in favour of conventional technique. The blood loss by the thoracic drains was significantly lower in the Group: minimally invasive 605.1 ± 679.5 ml (G1) versus 1617 ± 1390 ml (G2) (P < 0.05).The average time of ICU and hospital stay were shorter in G1: 2.3 ± 1.8 and 5.5 ± 5.4 days versus 5.1 ± 3.6 and 10 ± 5.1 in G2 (P < 0.05), respectively. Vasoactive drug use was also less post-operative at 12.8% in minimally invasive group G1 versus 45% in G2. CONCLUSION: Aortic valve replacement through minimally invasive techniques, although intraoperative times larger, not demonstrate affect postoperative results that this case proved best when compared to the traditional approach.

Video-assisted cardiac surgery: 6 years of experience.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive and video-assisted cardiac surgery (VACS) has increased in popularity over the past 15 years. The small incisions have been associated with a good aesthetic effect and less surgical trauma, therefore less postoperative pain and rapid recovery. OBJECTIVES: To present our series with VACS, after 6 years of use of the method. METHODS: 136 patients underwent VACS, after written consent, between September 2005 and October 2011, 50% for men and age of 47.8 ± 15, 4 anos, divided into two groups: with cardiopulmonary (CEC) (GcCEC=105 patients): mitral valve disease (47/105), aortic disease (39/105), congenital heart disease (19/105) and without extracorporeal circulation (CEC) (GsCEC=31 patients): cardiac resynchronization (18/ 31), cardiac tumor (4/31) and minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (6/31). GcCEC was held in right minithoracotomy (3 to 5 cm) and femoral access to perform cannulation. RESULTS: In GcCEC, mean length of ICU stay and hospital stay were respectively 2.4 ± 4.5 days and 5.0 ± 6.8 days. Twelve patients presented complications in post-operative and five (4.8%) death. Ninety-three (88.6%) patients evolved uneventful, were extubated in operating room, and remained a mean of 1.8 ± 0.9 days in ICU and 3.6 ± 1.3 days in the hospital. In GsCEC, were mean 1.3 ± 0.7 days in ICU and 2.9 ± 1.4 days in hospital and without complications or deaths. CONCLUSION: The results found in this series are comparable to those of world literature and confirm the method as an option the conventional technique.

Cirurgia cardíaca videoassistida: 6 anos de experiência / Video-assisted cardiac surgery: 6 years of experience

INTRODUÇÃO: A cirurgia cardíaca minimamente invasiva e videoassistida (CCVA) tem aumentado em popularidade nos últimos 15 anos. As pequenas incisões têm sido associadas a um bom efeito estético e menor trauma cirúrgico, consequentemente, menor dor e rápida recuperação pós-operatória. OBJETIVOS: Apresentar nossa casuística com CCVA, após 6 anos de uso do método. MÉTODOS: Cento e trinta e seis pacientes foram submetidos à CCVA, após consentimento escrito, entre setembro de 2005 e outubro de 2011, sendo 50% do sexo masculino, com idade de 47,8 ± 15,4 anos, divididos em dois grupos: com circulação extracorpórea (CEC) (GcCEC=105 pacientes): valvopatia mitral (47/105), valvopatia aórtica (39/105) e cardiopatia congênita (19/105) e sem CEC (GsCEC=31 pacientes): ressincronização cardíaca (18/31), tumor cardíaco (4/31) e revascularização miocárdica minimamente invasiva (6/31). No GcCEC, foi realizada minitoracotomia direita (3 a 5 cm) e acesso femoral para canulação periférica. RESULTADOS: No GcCEC, a média de dias em UTI (DUTI) e de internação hospitalar (DH) foi, respectivamente, 2,4 ± 4,5 dias e 5,0 ± 6,8 dias. Doze pacientes apresentaram complicações no pós-operatório e cinco (4,8%) foram a óbito. Noventa e três (88,6%) pacientes evoluíram sem intercorrências, foram extubados no centro cirúrgico, permanecendo 1,8 ± 0,9 DUTI e 3,6 ± 1,3 DH. No GsCEC, foram 1,3 ± 0,7 DUTI e 2,9 ± 1,4 DH, sem intercorrências ou óbitos. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados encontrados nesta casuística são comparáveis aos da literatura mundial e confirmam o método como opção à técnica convencional.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive and video-assisted cardiac surgery (VACS) has increased in popularity over the past 15 years. The small incisions have been associated with a good aesthetic effect and less surgical trauma, therefore less postoperative pain and rapid recovery. OBJECTIVES: To present our series with VACS, after 6 years of use of the method. METHODS: 136 patients underwent VACS, after written consent, between September 2005 and October 2011, 50% for men and age of 47.8 ± 15, 4anos, divided into two groups: with cardiopulmonary (CEC) (GcCEC=105 patients): mitral valve disease (47/105), aortic disease (39/105), congenital heart disease (19/105) and without extracorporeal circulation (CEC) (GsCEC=31 patients): cardiac resynchronization (18/ 31), cardiac tumor (4/31) and minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (6/31). GcCEC was held in right minithoracotomy (3 to 5 cm) and femoral access to perform cannulation. RESULTS: In GcCEC, mean length of ICU stay and hospital stay were respectively 2.4 ± 4.5 days and 5.0 ± 6.8 days. Twelve patients presented complications in post-operative and five (4.8%) death. Ninety-three (88.6%) patients evolved uneventful, were extubated in operating room, and remained a mean of 1.8 ± 0.9 days in ICU and 3.6±1.3 days in the hospital. In GsCEC, were mean 1.3 ± 0.7 days in ICU and 2.9 ± 1.4 days in hospital and without complications or deaths. CONCLUSION: The results found in this series are comparable to those of world literature and confirm the method as an option the conventional technique.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: an alternative to the conventional technique.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the use of minimally invasive surgery for aortic valve replacement and compare your results with the traditional method. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2011 sixty patients underwent surgery on aortic valve, after written consent, these 40 by minimally invasive technique with right anterior minithoracotomy access (Group 1/G1) and 20 by median sternotomy (Group 2/G2). Compare the operating times and postoperative evolution intra-hospital. RESULTS: The average times of bypass and aortic crossclamp in G1 were, respectively, 142.7 ± 59.5 min and 88.6 ± 31.5 min and, in G2, 98.1 ± 39.1 min and 67.7 ± 26.2 min (P < 0.05), a difference in medians of 39 minutes in bypass time and 23 minutes in aortic cross-clamp were observed in favour of conventional technique. The blood loss by the thoracic drains was significantly lower in the Group: minimally invasive 605.1 ± 679.5 ml (G1) versus 1617 ± 1390 ml (G2) (P < 0.05).The average time of ICU and hospital stay were shorter in G1: 2.3 ± 1.8 and 5.5 ± 5.4 days versus 5.1 ± 3.6 and 10 ± 5.1 in G2 (P < 0.05), respectively. Vasoactive drug use was also less post-operative at 12.8% in minimally invasive group G1 versus 45% in G2. CONCLUSION: Aortic valve replacement through minimally invasive techniques, although intraoperative times larger, not demonstrate affect postoperative results that this case proved best when compared to the traditional approach.