Atrial septal defect minimally invasive repair: Difference between revisions
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
* Lesser [[infection]]s. | * Lesser [[infection]]s. | ||
===Trial | ===Trial Supportive Data=== | ||
Studies done on 68 patients (39 [[conventional sternotomy]], 29 [[minimally invasive surgery|minimally invasive ASD closure]]) to compare the safety and efficacy of [[minimally invasive surgery|minimally invasive ASD closure]] compared to the conventional sternotomy approach (CSA) found no statistically significant difference in morbidity and mortality. However, a significant difference in postoperative length of stay was seen. Thus, [[minimally invasive surgery|minimally invasive ASD closure]] (MIC) was found to be as effective as conventional sternotomy approach (CSA) with the advantage of decreased hospital stay <ref name="pmid12735575">{{cite journal| author=Ryan WH, Cheirif J, Dewey TM, Prince SL, Mack MJ| title=Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive atrial septal defect closure. | journal=Ann Thorac Surg | year= 2003 | volume= 75 | issue= 5 | pages= 1532-4 | pmid=12735575 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>. | Studies done on 68 patients (39 [[conventional sternotomy]], 29 [[minimally invasive surgery|minimally invasive ASD closure]]) to compare the safety and efficacy of [[minimally invasive surgery|minimally invasive ASD closure]] compared to the conventional sternotomy approach (CSA) found no statistically significant difference in morbidity and mortality. However, a significant difference in postoperative length of stay was seen. Thus, [[minimally invasive surgery|minimally invasive ASD closure]] (MIC) was found to be as effective as conventional sternotomy approach (CSA) with the advantage of decreased hospital stay <ref name="pmid12735575">{{cite journal| author=Ryan WH, Cheirif J, Dewey TM, Prince SL, Mack MJ| title=Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive atrial septal defect closure. | journal=Ann Thorac Surg | year= 2003 | volume= 75 | issue= 5 | pages= 1532-4 | pmid=12735575 | doi= | pmc= | url= }} </ref>. | ||
Revision as of 18:51, 9 January 2013
|
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 repair of atrial septal defect has been shown to be as successful as the conventional sternotomy, with the added advantage of being less invasive, less post-surgical complications and decreased hospital stay.
Minimally Invasive Repair
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
Type of Incisions
- Upper hemisteronomy
- Right parasternal
- Right submammary bikini line (for females)
- Limited median sternotomy (for males)
- Transxiphoid sternotomy (for children or young adults)
It is advised that an anterolateral approach only be used in adults as it may damage prepubescent girls during development of breast tissue.
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 conventional sternotomy, 29 minimally invasive ASD closure) to compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive ASD closure compared to the conventional sternotomy approach (CSA) found no statistically significant difference in morbidity and mortality. However, a significant difference in postoperative length of stay was seen. Thus, minimally invasive ASD closure (MIC) was found to be as effective as conventional sternotomy approach (CSA) with the advantage of decreased hospital stay [1].