One thing I wanted to add it that you need to make sure that you ask your surgeon a lot of questions about your minimally invasive surgery and the upsides and downsides. Often people come onto this board and assume that "minimally invasive" means that there will be minimal pain, minimal recovery time, and minimal complications. There have been individuals on this board who have had both minimally invasive surgery as well as the more standard sternum opening and have reported much more pain with the minimally invasive approach. The reason is that the surgeon needs to cut through a lot of muscle with all of the minimally invasive approaches while there is relavely little muscle cutting when they go through the sternum. If you have had a broken bone, you know that there is relatively little or no pain once the bone is reset until it heals. Compare that to an injured muscle pain (pulled, strained, etc.) and recovery and there is no contest. That said, it seems from my unscientific observations on this board that those who have a minimally invasive surgery have fewer restrictions (especially with regards to driving) immediately after surgery. One advantage of the full sternectomy is that it gives the surgeon the best access to the heart in case you have some complicating factors. I believe there have been some people on this board who went in for minimally invasive surgery, but the doctor ended up finding some things they didn't like and had to do the sternectomy as well to get better access - in that case you would get the downsides of both approaches and the upside of neither. The minimally invasive approach does, of course, offer cosmetic advantages. If you are a person who would feel extremely uncomfortable with a chest scar, that can be avoided. Regardless, please make sure you understand the pros and cons of each approach before making your decision. Best wishes.
