Technique and early outcomes of total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Reports on aortic and mitral double-valve replacement through total thoracoscopy are scarce, with surgical techniques constantly evolving. We aimed to compare the feasibility and safety between total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement and median sternotomy double-valve replacement. Methods: From November 2021 to March 2023, we performed double-valve replacements in 76 patients using the total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement. The control group comprised 77 patients who underwent median sternotomy double-valve replacement. We analyzed data on baseline characteristics, perioperative events, and early postoperative outcomes. Results: In the total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement group, the cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamping times were 174.20 ± 38.87 minutes and 120.20 ± 19.54 minutes, respectively; both were significantly longer compared with those in the median sternotomy double-valve replacement group (cardiopulmonary bypass 123.65 ± 15.33 minutes; aortic crossclamping 82.86 ± 9.51 minutes, P < .001). The total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement group exhibited an extended operative duration, with a mean of 4.40 ± 0.76 hours, in contrast to 3.21 ± 0.68 hours in the median sternotomy double-valve replacement group (P < .001). Postoperatively, the total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement group demonstrated a significantly shorter mechanical ventilation duration (9.29 ± 3.12 hours) and reduced intensive care unit stay time (24.31 ± 7.29 hours) than the median sternotomy double-valve replacement group (11.49 ± 4.27 hours and 26.76 ± 5.89 hours, respectively; P values of .019 and .040, respectively). Furthermore, the total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement group experienced a shorter postoperative hospitalization time, averaging 6.21 ± 1.58 days, than the median sternotomy double-valve replacement group (8.35 ± 1.07 days, P < .001). The total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement group also exhibited significantly lower chest drainage volume (average 223.91 ± 53.93 mL) than the median sternotomy double-valve replacement group (382.56 ± 61.87 mL, P < .001). In terms of transfusion rates, the total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement group (9.21%) showed a marked reduction compared with the median sternotomy double-valve replacement group (36.36%, P < .001). Both groups had similar major complications. Conclusions: The initial results of the total thoracoscopic double-valve replacement underscore its safety and efficacy. This approach extends the applicability of total thoracoscopic cardiac surgery and warrants deeper exploration.