Less invasive replacement of aortic root, ascending aorta and hemiarch via partial upper sternotomy: a propensity-score-matched comparison with full sternotomy.

Objectives: Less invasive surgery has emerged as an option for aortic pathologies. The current study compared our experience on early postoperative results of patients with aortic surgery between partial upper sternotomy (PUS) and full sternotomy (FS).

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the data of patients undergoing aortic root surgery with concomitant ascending aorta and hemiarch replacement. Exclusion criteria were type A aortic dissection and other concomitant major cardiac surgery. After propensity score matching, we compared the perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing surgery with PUS versus FS.

Results: A total of 161 patients operated on between January 2013 and September 2022 met the inclusion criteria (PUS: n = 22, FS: n = 139). Propensity score matching yielded 22 pairs with a balanced distribution of propensity scores and covariates between the compared groups. There was no evidence that PUS affects cardiopulmonary bypass [108 (67-119) vs 113 (87-148) min, P = 0.154; PUS vs FS] and circulatory arrest duration [9 (7-10) vs 9 (8-13) min, P = 0.264; PUS vs FS]. There was a reduced cross-clamp duration in the PUS group [88 (58-96) vs 92 (71-122) min, P = 0.032]. Cumulative sum charts have shown consistently low cross-clamp and circulatory arrest duration for 2 experienced surgeons who performed 20 of the procedures in the PUS group (10 each). Perioperative mortality and morbidity were low, with no in-hospital mortality in the PUS group [0 vs 1(4.5%), P > 0.999] and absence of strokes in both groups.

Conclusions: In summary, our initial experience suggests that less invasive aortic root, ascending aorta and hemiarch replacement via PUS could be performed in our patient cohort as safely as via full sternotomy. Advantages for the patient are reduced surgical trauma, improved cosmetic results and-presumably-less pain.