Fylypchuk V. V., Lazoryshynets V. V.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE AND CLASSICAL APPROACHES IN THE SURGICAL TREATMENT OF ISOLATED MITRAL VALVE INSUFFICIENCY: IMMEDIATE RESULTS AND FUNCTIONAL RECOVERY OF PATIENTS

---

Show/Download

About the author:

Fylypchuk V. V., Lazoryshynets V. V.

Heading:

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE

Type of article:

Scientific article

Annotation:

Mitral valve repair is the optimal method for the surgical correction of mitral regurgitation. The development of minimally invasive technologies has enabled reconstructive procedures to be performed via alternative approaches, potentially reducing surgical trauma; however, the question of their advantages over traditional median sternotomy remains a subject of debate. Particular importance is attached to evaluating not only the immediate surgical outcomes but also the pace of postoperative mobilization and functional rehabilitation. The aim of the study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety, features of the early postoperative period, and the speed of functional recovery of patients after mitral valve repair performed through right-sided minithoracotomy versus median sternotomy. A retrospective analysis was conducted on the treatment outcomes of 134 patients with isolated mitral valve regurgitation who underwent surgery between 2020 and 2024. Group I comprised 59 patients who underwent repair via right-sided minithoracotomy, while group II included 75 patients who underwent median sternotomy. Intraoperative characteristics, the early postoperative course, length of hospital stay, analgesic requirements, and the timing of mobilization and recovery were analyzed. The use of a minithoracotomy approach was associated with longer operative times, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamping, yet it was characterized by reduced blood loss. At the same time, shorter stays in the intensive care unit and hospital, a shorter duration of analgesia, earlier mobilization, and a faster return to daily and professional activities were observed. There were no statistically significant differences regarding the duration of mechanical ventilation or the incidence of postoperative complications.

Tags:

Bibliography:

1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, Milojevic M, Baldus S, Bauersachs J, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(7):561-632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395
2. Abu-Omar Y, Fazmin IT, Ali JM, Pelletier MP. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13(3):1960-1970. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-2114
3. Hage A, Hage F, Al-Amodi H, Gupta S, Papatheodorou SI, Hawkins R, et al. Minimally invasive versus sternotomy for mitral surgery in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Innovations (Phila). 2021;16(4):310-316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15569845211000332
4. Eqbal AJ, Gupta S, Basha A, Qiu Y, Wu N, Rega F, et al. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery versus conventional sternotomy mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Card Surg. 2022;37(5):1319-1327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.16314
5. Amin A, Kumar R, Mokhtassi SS, Alassiri AK, Odaman A, Khan MAR, et al. Minimally invasive vs conventional mitral valve surgery: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024;11:1437524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1437524
6. Spadini FA, Lira KB, Delvaux RS, Kopittke L, Anschau F, Ceron RO, et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Open Heart. 2026;13(1):e003612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2025-003612
7. Heuts S, Hjij W, Kawczynski MJ, Olsthoorn JR, Tjon Joek Tjien A, van Kuijk SMJ, et al. Defining centres of expertise for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and volume-outcome meta-analysis. Heart. 2025;111(20):984-991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2024-325048
8. De Jesus J, Estrella J, Jesse J, Binny V, Sri Radhakrishnan Parthasarathy P, Kabir Y, et al. Robotic versus thoracoscopic minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of matched studies. Coron Artery Dis. 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/crd.0000000000000814
9. Engelman DT, Ben Ali W, Williams JB, Perrault LP, Reddy VS, Arora RC, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in cardiac surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(8):755-766. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1153
10. Goecke S, Pitts L, Dini M, Montagner M, Wert L, Akansel S, et al. Enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery for minimally invasive valve surgery: a systematic review of key elements and advancements. Medicina (Kaunas). 2025;61(3):495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61030495
11. Grant SW, Hickey GL, Modi P, Hunter S, Akowuah E, Zacharias J. Propensity-matched analysis of minimally invasive approach versus sternotomy for mitral valve surgery. Heart. 2019;105(10):783-789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2018-314049
12. Gillinov AM, Mihaljevic T, Javadikasgari H, Suri RM, Mick SL, Navia JL, et al. Early results of robotically assisted mitral valve surgery: analysis of the first 1000 cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155(1):82-91.e2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.07.037
13. Babliak OD, Demianenko VM, Babliak DY, Marchenko AI, Melnyk YeA, Stohov OS. Minimalno invazyvne koronарne shuntuvannia yak standartnyi pidkhid u khirurhichnii revaskuliaryzatsii miokarda. Ukr Zh Sertsevo-Sudynnoi Khir. 2020;(2):9-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30702/ujcvs/20.3905/012009-014 [in Ukrainian].

Publication of the article:

«Bulletin of problems biology and medicine», 2026 Issue 3, 182, 342-348 pages, index UDC 616.126.42-089:616-089.819

DOI:

10.29254/2077-4214-2026-3-182-342-348