Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement Via Right Anterior Minithoracotomy and Central Cannulation Versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement in Obese Patients

INTRODUCTION: The minimally invasive implantation of aortic valve prosthesis via thoracotomy has numerous advantages and is comfortable, especially during the early postoperative period. Disadvantages of this method include peripheral vessel complications and groin infections. Central cannulation (direct aortic cannulation with superior vena cava cannulation) eliminates these drawbacks. In this report, we evaluated this method of treatment in patients with obesity. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 21 obese patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve implantation via thoracotomy and central cannulation with a bovine pericardial aortic prosthesis between 2017 and 2021. We compared these records with the medical records of 27 obese patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent conventional aortic valve surgery. RESULTS: Mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were similar in both groups. Operating time was significantly longer in the minimally invasive group (P <0.05). In the minimally invasive group, acute renal failure occurred in 2 patients. In terms of postoperative complications, deep sternal wound infection/sternal instability was much higher in the conventional group. This was not statistically significant (P=0.090). Minimally invasive operated patients had a comfortable early postoperative period, with a mean visual analog scale for pain of 1.10±0.83 (no pain-mild pain). When we assessed patient satisfaction with the postoperative period, 13 patients were extremely satisfied, 7 patients were satisfied, and 1 patient was quite satisfied. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive aortic valve implantation via thoracotomy and central cannulation is a safe and effective treatment for obese patients.