Will minimally invasive valve replacement ever really be important?

Anthony D. Caffarelli, Robert C. Robbins

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

12 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose of review: Most cardiac surgical centers worldwide have instituted some form of minimally invasive surgery into their operative armamentarium. However, skepticism still remains whether minimally invasive valve replacement will ever really be important. This review first addresses the definition of minimally invasive surgery and then analyzes the possible advantages and disadvantages of minimally invasive valvular surgery. Recent findings: The nomenclature for minimally invasive surgery is ill defined. Minimally invasive valve replacement is a safe and effective procedure compared with total sternotomy. The advantages of minimally invasive valve replacement are the length of stay and disposition after discharge, postoperative bleeding, cosmesis, and postoperative pain, whereas the main disadvantage involves the operative times early in the learning curve. Summary: Minimally invasive valve replacement is beneficial and will continue to evolve as an important treatment option for patients with valvular heart diseases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)123-127
Number of pages5
JournalCurrent Opinion in Cardiology
Volume19
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2004
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Cardiac surgery
  • Minimally invasive
  • Valve replacement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Will minimally invasive valve replacement ever really be important?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this