RESUMEN
OBJETIVO: Demonstrar o uso da cirurgia minimamente invasiva para tratamento da valva aórtica e comparar seus resultados com o método tradicional. MÉTODOS: Entre 2006 e 2011, 60 pacientes foram submetidos à cirurgia na valva aórtica, após consentimento escrito, destes 40 pela técnica minimamente invasiva com acesso por minitoracotomia ântero-lateral direita (Grupo 1/G1)e 20 por esternotomia mediana (Grupo 2/G2). Comparamos os tempos operatórios e a evolução pós-operatória intra-hospitalar. RESULTADOS: Os tempos médios de circulação extracorpórea (CEC) e pinçamento aórtico no G1 foram, respectivamente, 142,7 ± 59,5 min e 88,6 ± 31,5 min e, no G2, 98,1 ± 39,1 min e 67,7 ± 26,2 min (P<0,05), uma diferença nas medianas de 39 minutos no tempo de CEC e 23 minutos no pinçamento aórtico foram observados a favor da técnica convencional. A perda sanguínea pelos drenos torácicos foi significativamente menor no grupo minimamente invasivo: 605,1 ± 679,5 ml (G1) versus 1617 ± 1390 ml (G2) (P<0,05). Os tempos médios de internamento em UTI e hospitalar foram menores em G1: 2,3 ± 1,8 dias e 5,5 ± 5,4 dias versus 5,1 ± 3,6 dias e 10 ± 5,1 dias em G2 (P<0,05), respectivamente. O uso de drogas vasoativas no pós-operatório também foi menor no grupo minimamente invasivo 12,8% em G1 versus 45% em G2. CONCLUSÃO: Troca valvar aórtica com o uso de técnicas minimamente invasivas, apesar de demonstrar maiores tempos intraoperatórios, não afeta os resultados pósoperatórios, que nesta casuística mostraram-se melhores quando comparado ao método tradicional.
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the use of minimally invasive surgery for aortic valve replacement and compare your results with the traditional method. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2011 sixty patients underwent surgery on aortic valve, after written consent, these 40 by minimally invasive technique with right anterior minithoracotomy access (Group 1/G1) and 20 by median sternotomy (Group 2/G2). Compare the operating times and postoperative evolution intra-hospital. RESULTS: The average times of bypass and aortic crossclamp in G1 were, respectively, 142.7 ± 59.5 min and 88.6 ± 31.5 min and, in G2, 98.1 ± 39.1 min and 67.7 ± 26.2 min (P < 0.05), a difference in medians of 39 minutes in bypass time and 23 minutes in aortic cross-clamp were observed in favour of conventional technique. The blood loss by the thoracic drains was significantly lower in the Group: minimally invasive 605.1 ± 679.5 ml (G1) versus 1617 ± 1390 ml (G2) (P < 0.05).The average time of ICU and hospital stay were shorter in G1: 2.3 ± 1.8 and 5.5 ± 5.4 days versus 5.1 ± 3.6 and 10 ± 5.1 in G2 (P < 0.05), respectively. Vasoactive drug use was also less post-operative at 12.8% in minimally invasive group G1 versus 45% in G2. CONCLUSION: Aortic valve replacement through minimally invasive techniques, although intraoperative times larger, not demonstrate affect postoperative results that this case proved best when compared to the traditional approach.
Asunto(s)
Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/métodos , Esternotomía/métodos , Toracotomía/métodos , Volumen Sanguíneo , Pérdida de Sangre Quirúrgica/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Periodo Posoperatorio , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/métodos , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the use of minimally invasive surgery for aortic valve replacement and compare your results with the traditional method. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2011 sixty patients underwent surgery on aortic valve, after written consent, these 40 by minimally invasive technique with right anterior minithoracotomy access (Group 1/G1) and 20 by median sternotomy (Group 2/G2). Compare the operating times and postoperative evolution intra-hospital. RESULTS: The average times of bypass and aortic crossclamp in G1 were, respectively, 142.7 ± 59.5 min and 88.6 ± 31.5 min and, in G2, 98.1 ± 39.1 min and 67.7 ± 26.2 min (P < 0.05), a difference in medians of 39 minutes in bypass time and 23 minutes in aortic cross-clamp were observed in favour of conventional technique. The blood loss by the thoracic drains was significantly lower in the Group: minimally invasive 605.1 ± 679.5 ml (G1) versus 1617 ± 1390 ml (G2) (P < 0.05).The average time of ICU and hospital stay were shorter in G1: 2.3 ± 1.8 and 5.5 ± 5.4 days versus 5.1 ± 3.6 and 10 ± 5.1 in G2 (P < 0.05), respectively. Vasoactive drug use was also less post-operative at 12.8% in minimally invasive group G1 versus 45% in G2. CONCLUSION: Aortic valve replacement through minimally invasive techniques, although intraoperative times larger, not demonstrate affect postoperative results that this case proved best when compared to the traditional approach.