Comparison of initial outcomes between minimally invasive right minithoracotomy and standard median sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated surgical closures of atrial septal defects.

Sumsul Arif Mohammad Musa, M. Uddin, S. A. Nahian, M. P. Ahmed, S. Gupta, Rubana Forhad, Prasanta Kumar Ch, F. Ahmed, Mohammad Mostafizur Rahman Miah
{"title":"Comparison of initial outcomes between minimally invasive right minithoracotomy and standard median sternotomy in patients undergoing isolated surgical closures of atrial septal defects.","authors":"Sumsul Arif Mohammad Musa, M. Uddin, S. A. Nahian, M. P. Ahmed, S. Gupta, Rubana Forhad, Prasanta Kumar Ch, F. Ahmed, Mohammad Mostafizur Rahman Miah","doi":"10.35841/CARDIOLOGY.4.1.18-23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: An atrial septal defect (ASD) can be closed via percutaneous approach and with surgical closure using either the standard median sternotomy or a minimally invasive procedure such as minithoracotmy. In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of using the median sternotomy versus the right minithoracotomy in isolated closures of ASDs. Methods: This prospective observational study included 44 patients who underwent isolated ASD closures in the department of cardiac surgery at the National Heart Foundation Hospital and Research Institute (NHFH & RI) in Dhaka, Bangladesh, from July 2014 to June 2016. After fulfilling the enrolment criteria, participants were divided into two equal groups of 22 patients. ASD closure was performed on Group 1 using the minimally invasive right minithoracotomy, while the same procedure was performed on Group 2 using the standard median sternotomy. Results: The mean total operative time (in minutes) required was 179.45 ? 26.79 for Group 1 and 154.72 ? 26.15 for Group 2. The mean aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time (in minutes) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (in minutes) were significantly increased in Group 1 compared to Group 2 (p=<0.05). Furthermore, the mean ? SD of the length of incision (in centimetres) and duration of endotracheal intubation (in hours) were significantly higher in Group 2 than Group 1 (p<0.001). While the duration of postoperative hospital stays (in days) and pain score (visual analogue scale score) was significantly higher in Group 2 than Group 1. No residual shunt was found in patients of either group. Conclusion: Our findings shows some advantages in group 1 (right minithoracotomy) population including the reduced length of incision, the shorter duration of endotracheal intubation, less postoperative blood loss, fewer transfusion requirements, minimal postoperative pain and the shorter duration of hospital stay. In addition, patients in Group 1 reported smaller scars, as expected, which contributes to better overall patient satisfaction.","PeriodicalId":199191,"journal":{"name":"Current Trends in Cardiology","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Trends in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35841/CARDIOLOGY.4.1.18-23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: An atrial septal defect (ASD) can be closed via percutaneous approach and with surgical closure using either the standard median sternotomy or a minimally invasive procedure such as minithoracotmy. In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of using the median sternotomy versus the right minithoracotomy in isolated closures of ASDs. Methods: This prospective observational study included 44 patients who underwent isolated ASD closures in the department of cardiac surgery at the National Heart Foundation Hospital and Research Institute (NHFH & RI) in Dhaka, Bangladesh, from July 2014 to June 2016. After fulfilling the enrolment criteria, participants were divided into two equal groups of 22 patients. ASD closure was performed on Group 1 using the minimally invasive right minithoracotomy, while the same procedure was performed on Group 2 using the standard median sternotomy. Results: The mean total operative time (in minutes) required was 179.45 ? 26.79 for Group 1 and 154.72 ? 26.15 for Group 2. The mean aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time (in minutes) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (in minutes) were significantly increased in Group 1 compared to Group 2 (p=<0.05). Furthermore, the mean ? SD of the length of incision (in centimetres) and duration of endotracheal intubation (in hours) were significantly higher in Group 2 than Group 1 (p<0.001). While the duration of postoperative hospital stays (in days) and pain score (visual analogue scale score) was significantly higher in Group 2 than Group 1. No residual shunt was found in patients of either group. Conclusion: Our findings shows some advantages in group 1 (right minithoracotomy) population including the reduced length of incision, the shorter duration of endotracheal intubation, less postoperative blood loss, fewer transfusion requirements, minimal postoperative pain and the shorter duration of hospital stay. In addition, patients in Group 1 reported smaller scars, as expected, which contributes to better overall patient satisfaction.
微创右小胸切开术与标准胸骨正中切开术治疗房间隔缺损的初步疗效比较。
背景:房间隔缺损(ASD)可以通过经皮入路和标准胸骨正中切开术或微创手术(如小胸开胸术)进行手术封闭。在这项研究中,我们评估了在孤立性asd闭合中使用胸骨正中切开术与右侧小开胸术的结果。方法:这项前瞻性观察性研究包括2014年7月至2016年6月在孟加拉国达卡国家心脏基金会医院和研究所(NHFH & RI)心脏外科接受孤立性ASD闭合的44例患者。在满足入组标准后,参与者被分为两组,每组22例患者。组1采用微创右小胸切开术闭合ASD,组2采用标准胸骨正中切开术闭合ASD。结果:平均总手术时间(分钟)为179.45 ?第1组26.79和154.72 ?第二组26.15。组1平均主动脉交叉夹夹(ACC)时间(min)和体外循环(CPB)时间(min)均显著高于组2 (p=<0.05)。此外,平均值?2组的切口长度SD(厘米)和气管插管时间SD(小时)显著高于1组(p<0.001)。2组患者术后住院时间(天)和疼痛评分(视觉模拟评分)明显高于1组。两组患者均未发现分流残余。结论:我们的研究结果显示,1组(右小开胸)患者具有切口长度缩短、气管插管时间缩短、术后出血量少、输血需求少、术后疼痛最小、住院时间短等优势。此外,第一组患者报告的疤痕较小,正如预期的那样,这有助于提高患者的总体满意度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信