Surgical robots have been utilized to facilitate a truly minimally invasive approach in cardiac surgery. Robotic aortic valve replacement allows for a totally endoscopic approach with better visualization in a wider range of patients with varying anatomies. It has the potential advantages of faster functional recovery and superior cosmetic outcomes compared to traditional sternotomy or thoracotomy approaches. In this case report, we show the details of robotic totally endoscopic aortic valve replacement.

UNASSIGNED: While the benefits of minimally invasive aortic valve surgery compared with standard sternotomy have been widely described, the impact of preservation of pleural integrity (PPI) in minimally invasive surgery is still widely discussed. This study aims to define the role of PPI on postoperative and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR).
UNASSIGNED: All 2,430 consecutive patients undergoing MIAVR (ministernotomy or right anterior minithoracotomy) between 1997 and 2022 were included in the study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with and without PPI. PPI was considered the maintenance of the pleura closed without the need for a chest tube insertion at the end of the surgical procedure. A propensity-matched analysis was used to compare the PPI and not-PPI groups.
UNASSIGNED: After propensity matching, 848 patients were included in each group (PPI and not-PPI). The mean age was 70.21 versus 71.42 years, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 0.31% versus 0.30% in not-PPI versus PPI, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 147.4 months. Postoperatively, not-PPI versus PPI patients had a longer intensive care unit stay (9.7 vs 17.3 h, P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (5.2 vs 8.9 days, P < 0.001). The rate of respiratory complications including the incidence of pneumothorax or subcutaneous emphysema, pulmonary atelectasis, and pleural effusion events requiring thoracentesis/drainage was significantly higher in not-PPI versus PPI. The 30-day all-cause mortality was higher in not-PPI versus PPI (0.029 vs 0.010, P = 0.003). Perioperative, short-term, and long-term all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the not-PPI group.
UNASSIGNED: PPI after MIAVR is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative complications, reduced lengths of stay, and improved overall survival compared with not-PPI. Therefore, a MIAVR tailored patient-procedure approach to maintaining the pleura integrity positively impacts short-term and long-term outcomes.

This study elucidates the efficacy and outcomes of a minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via a right anterior mini-thoracotomy, emphasizing its potential to minimize surgical trauma and expedite recovery while maintaining procedural integrity comparable to that of a traditional full sternotomy. This video tutorial demonstrates a successful aortic valve replacement procedure using the right anterior mini-thoracotomy approach, characterized by the absence of sutureless valves and specialized instruments. The detailed surgical procedure includes specific steps to optimize visibility and access through strategic incisions and rib dislocations, adhering to \"the box principle\" for effective exposure of the aortic valve. This video tutorial suggests that a right anterior mini-thoracotomy is a viable, cost-effective alternative to a conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement, offering significant patient benefits without compromising long-term valve function or safety. The broader implications for patient selection and surgical techniques highlight the need for meticulous preoperative planning and anatomical assessment to maximize the potential of a right anterior mini-thoracotomy in clinical practice.

UNASSIGNED: Minimally invasive and hybrid procedures for patients with aortic valve pathology and coronary artery disease are innovative solutions.
UNASSIGNED: To report the results of hybrid aortic valve replacement through right anterior minithoracotomy (RT-AVR)/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR)/coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery for patients with aortic valve and coronary artery disease.
UNASSIGNED: Analysis of prospectively gathered data of 187 patients - 86 hybrid and 101 conventional procedures. For 21 patients, RT-AVR was followed by PCI during the same session, and for 65 patients RT-AVR was performed within 90 days of PCI.
UNASSIGNED: Hospital mortality in the AVR/CABG and RT-AVR/PCI groups was 3.0% and 1.2%, respectively (p = 0.237). Complications occurred in 18.6% of patients in the RT-AVR/PCI group and 33.7% in the AVR/CABG group (p = 0.020). Two-stage RT-AVR/PCI was performed due to ACS (100%); one-stage was due to the intention to perform a minimally invasive procedure instead of AVR/CABG (71.4%) or due to replacing CABG with PCI because of a lack of vascular grafts for CABG (19.1%). In 38.5% of patients from the two-stage subgroup, antiplatelet therapy was stopped before RT-AVR, 32.3% of patients from the two-stage subgroup were on single, and 29.2% on dual antiplatelet therapy until RT-AVR, which had no influence on postoperative blood requirements or postoperative myocardial infarction (p = 0.410 and p = 0.077, respectively).
UNASSIGNED: The hybrid procedure presented in our series showed similar mortality and morbidity results and may be an alternative to conventional AVR and CABG through full sternotomy in selected patients.

A right anterior minithoracotomy is the least-frequently utilized approach in minimally invasive aortic valve surgery; moreover, this access is rarely used for aortic root procedures. With careful patient selection, some technical considerations, e.g. institution of peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass, and a sufficient learning curve, the right anterior minithoracotomy can become a convenient access for surgical interventions on the aortic root. We present the case of a 31-year-old female patient with Marfan syndrome and severe aortic regurgitation due to an aortic root aneurysm. We demonstrate a step-by-step guide through the David procedure via a right anterior minithoracotomy.

Ministernotomy and right anterior minithoracotomy are the 2 main techniques applied for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. The goal of this study is to compare early and long-term outcomes of both techniques.
The data of 2419 patients undergoing isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement between 1999 and 2019 were prospectively collected. Retrospectively, patients were divided into the ministernotomy group (n = 1352) and the minithoracotomy group (n = 1067).
After propensity score matching, 986 patients remained in each group. Operation time and rate of conversion to full sternotomy were significantly higher in the minithoracotomy group than in the ministernotomy group (184.6 ± 45.2 vs 241.3 ± 68.6, relative risk, 2.54, P = .005 and .09 vs .23, relative risk, 1.45, P = .013, respectively). The 30-day mortality, excluding cardiac death, was lower in the ministernotomy group than in the minithoracotomy group (0.012 vs 0.028, relative risk, 1.41, P = .011, respectively); the intensive care unit length of stay (12.4 vs 16.5, relative risk, 1.62, P = .037, respectively) and hospital length of stay (5.4 vs 8.7, relative risk, 1.74 P = .028, respectively) were significantly longer in the minithoracotomy group. The minithoracotomy surgical approach was the strongest independent predictor of early mortality (odds ratio, 4.24 [1.67-7.35], P = .002). The actuarial survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years was significantly better in the ministernotomy group than in the minithoracotomy group (P = .0001). Actuarial freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 97.3% ± 4.4% in the ministernotomy group versus 95.8% ± 5.2% in the minithoracotomy group (P = .087).
Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement using ministernotomy is associated with reduced operative time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and postoperative morbidities and incisional pain, and improves early and long-term mortality.

The study objective was to compare aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy with aortic valve replacement through a median sternotomy.
With propensity score matching, we selected 211 patients after aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy and 211 patients after aortic valve replacement who underwent operation between January 2010 and December 2013. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed, and multivariable logistic regression analysis of risk factors of postoperative morbidity was performed.
For propensity score-matched patients, hospital mortality was 1.0% in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy group and 1.4% in the aortic valve replacement group (P = 1.000). Stroke occurred in 0.5% versus 1.4% (P = .615), myocardial infarction occurred in 1.4% versus 1.9% (P = 1.000), and new onset of atrial fibrillation occurred in 12.8% versus 24.2% (P = .003) of patients in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy and aortic valve replacement groups, respectively. Postoperative drainage was 353.5 ± 248.6 mL versus 544.3 ± 324.5 mL (P < .001) and blood transfusion was required for 48.8% versus 67.3% (P < .001) of patients in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy and aortic valve replacement groups, respectively. Mediastinitis occurred in 2.8% of patients after aortic valve replacement and in 0.0% of patients after aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery (P = .040). Intensive care unit stay (1.3 ± 1.2 days vs 2.6 ± 2.6 days) and hospital stay (5.7 ± 1.6 days vs 8.7 ± 4.4 days) were statistically significantly shorter in the aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy group. Aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery resulted in reduced postoperative morbidity (odds ratio, 0.4; P < .001) and postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements (odds ratio, 0.4; P < .001).
Aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy surgery resulted in a reduced infection rate, diminished postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements, reduced occurrence of new onset of atrial fibrillation, and shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the function of the respiratory system after aortic valve replacement through median sternotomy (AVR) or the minimally invasive right anterior minithoracotomy (RAT-AVR) approach among elderly (aged≥75 years) patients.
METHODS: Observational cohort study.
METHODS: University hospital.
METHODS: The study included 65 elderly patients scheduled for RAT-AVR and 82 for standard AVR.
METHODS: Pulmonary function tests (PFT) were performed preoperatively, 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after surgery. In addition, respiratory complications were analyzed.
RESULTS: Respiratory complications occurred in 12.3% of patients in the RAT-AVR group and 18.3% of patients in the AVR group (p = 0.445). Mechanical ventilation time in the intensive care unit was 7.7±3.6 hours for RAT-AVR patients and 9.7±5.4 hours for AVR patients (p = 0.003). Most PFT were worse in the AVR group than in the RAT-AVR group when performed 1 week after surgery. After 1 month, forced expiratory volume in the first second, vital capacity, and total lung capacity differed significantly in favor of the RAT-AVR group (p = 0.002, p<0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively). After 3 months, the PFT parameters still had not returned to preoperative values, but the differences were no longer significant between the RAT-AVR and AVR groups. The multivariable median regression analysis demonstrated that RAT-AVR surgery was a key factor in a patient\'s higher postoperative PFT parameter values.
CONCLUSIONS: RAT-AVR surgery resulted in shorter postoperative mechanical ventilation time and improved the recovery of pulmonary function in elderly patients, but it did not reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications when compared with surgery performed through a median sternotomy.

During the past 50 years, median sternotomy has been the gold standard approach in cardiac surgery with excellent long-term outcomes. However, since the 1990 s, minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) has gained wide acceptance due to patient and economic demand. The advantages include less surgical trauma, less bleeding, less wound infections, less pain and faster recovery of the patients. One of these MICS approaches is the J-shaped upper ministernotomy which results in favourable long-term outcomes even in elderly and redo patients when compared with conventional sternotomy. Owing to its similarity to a full midline sternotomy, it has become the most popular MICS approach besides a mini-thoracotomy. It is a safe and feasible access, but certain recognized principles are mandatory to minimize complications. After identification of the landmarks, the 5-cm skin incision is performed in the midline between the second and fourth rib. The third or fourth right intercostal space is located and dissected laterally off the sternum. After osteotomy, the pericardium is pulled up with stay sutures which allow excellent exposure. The surgical procedures are performed in a standard fashion with central cannulation. Continuous CO2 insufflation is used to minimize the risk of air embolism. Epicardial pacing wires are placed before the removal of the aortic cross-clamp and one chest tube is used. Sternal closure is achieved with three to five stainless steel wires. The pectoral muscle, subcutaneous tissue and skin are adapted with resorbable running sutures. When performed properly, complications are rare (conversion, bleeding and wound infection) and well manageable.

Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) is associated with numerous advantages including improved patient satisfaction, cosmesis, decreased transfusion requirements, and cost-effectiveness. Despite these advantages, little information exists on how to build a MIAVR program from the ground up. The steps to build a MIAVR program include compiling a multi-disciplinary team composed of surgeons, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, perfusionists, operating room (OR) technicians, and nurses. Once assembled, this team can then approach hospital administrators to present a cost-benefit analysis of MIAVR, emphasizing the importance of reduced resource utilization in the long-term to offset the initial financial investment that will be required. With hospital approval, training can commence to provide surgeons and other staff with the necessary knowledge and skills in MIAVR procedures and outcomes. Marketing and advertising of the program through the use of social media, educational conferences, grand rounds, and printed media will attract the initial patients. A dedicated website for the program can function as a \"virtual lobby\" for patients wanting to learn more. Initially, conservative selection criteria of cases that qualify for MIAVR will set the program up for success by avoiding complex co-morbidities and surgical techniques. During the learning curve phase of the program, patient safety should be a priority.