Atrial septal defect minimally invasive repair: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
==Trial supportive data== | ==Trial supportive data== | ||
Studies done on 68 patients (39 CSA, 29 MIC) to compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive ASD closure compared to the conventional sternotomy approach (CSA) found no statistically difference in morbidity and mortality. However, a significant difference in postoperative length of stay was seen. Thus, MIC was found to be as effective as CSA with the advantage of decreased hospital stay. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 06:07, 10 September 2011
|
Atrial Septal Defect Microchapters | |
|
Treatment | |
|---|---|
|
Surgery | |
|
| |
|
Special Scenarios | |
|
Case Studies | |
|
Atrial septal defect minimally invasive repair On the Web | |
|
American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Atrial septal defect minimally invasive repair | |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Atrial septal defect minimally invasive repair | |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-In-Chief: Priyamvada Singh, M.B.B.S. [2]; Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [3] Assistant Editor(s)-In-Chief: Kristin Feeney, B.S. [4]
Overview
Minimally invasive approach to atrial septal defect/Mini-thoracotomy
Steps in the surgery
- Incision made through the right side of the chest.
- Patient put on heart-lung bypass machine.
- Tubes placed in the main artery and vein of the right leg
- The heart stopped during operation.
- Right atrium opened and atrial septal defect exposed
- Defect repaired
- Heart closed and restarted
- Heart-lung bypass is discontinued
Advantages
- Less invasive
- Smaller hospital stay
- Smaller recovery and faster healing of wound
- No or minimal activity restrictions post-surgery
- Lesser infections
Trial supportive data
Studies done on 68 patients (39 CSA, 29 MIC) to compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive ASD closure compared to the conventional sternotomy approach (CSA) found no statistically difference in morbidity and mortality. However, a significant difference in postoperative length of stay was seen. Thus, MIC was found to be as effective as CSA with the advantage of decreased hospital stay.