Mike From Michigan
Active member
I was wondering how many of you had the minimally invasive (MI) AVR procedure?
My surgeon said that he does it on about 15% of his patients and that it reduces pain, recovery time and blood loss (as can be expected). Also, instead of a 10-12 inch scar on the full sternotomy you only end up with a 3-4 scar and the chance of infection is reduced.
The surgeon said that the main patient criteria for this is that the patient cannot be overweight, should be under 50, cannot have any possibility of coranary heart disease that could require a bypass and the aorta itself needs to be in good shape (not dilated ot having atherosclerosis). In rare cases, the heart is not positioned normally (either slightly "turned away" or the aorta is in the way), so that could also preclude having the MI surgery. Is other cases, what starts out as a MI procedure end up as a full sternotomy due to unforeseen circumstances during surgery. Also of course, the surgeon must be qualified to do this procedure as it takes more skill. The only downside is that it is a longer procedure and you are on the pump a little longer (~15+ minutes). If possible I will go with this MI procedure - I meet the under 50 and not overweight criteria, hopefully the other tests will show that I qualify to have this done. I don't see why I (or anyone) would choose not to have this procedure if I/they qualified with all the advantages, or am I missing something - seems like a no-brainer to me...
Since it seems like most of the post-surgery stories involve full sternotomies, I am curious why more of you didn't elect to have the MI procedure done. Was it for one of the reasons mentioned above or something else I missed?
Was it even offered as an option to you?
Were any of you given this option and turned it down? If so, why?
For those of you who have had it, how was the recovery time and pain?
Any other thoughts on this? Thanks.
My surgeon said that he does it on about 15% of his patients and that it reduces pain, recovery time and blood loss (as can be expected). Also, instead of a 10-12 inch scar on the full sternotomy you only end up with a 3-4 scar and the chance of infection is reduced.
The surgeon said that the main patient criteria for this is that the patient cannot be overweight, should be under 50, cannot have any possibility of coranary heart disease that could require a bypass and the aorta itself needs to be in good shape (not dilated ot having atherosclerosis). In rare cases, the heart is not positioned normally (either slightly "turned away" or the aorta is in the way), so that could also preclude having the MI surgery. Is other cases, what starts out as a MI procedure end up as a full sternotomy due to unforeseen circumstances during surgery. Also of course, the surgeon must be qualified to do this procedure as it takes more skill. The only downside is that it is a longer procedure and you are on the pump a little longer (~15+ minutes). If possible I will go with this MI procedure - I meet the under 50 and not overweight criteria, hopefully the other tests will show that I qualify to have this done. I don't see why I (or anyone) would choose not to have this procedure if I/they qualified with all the advantages, or am I missing something - seems like a no-brainer to me...
Since it seems like most of the post-surgery stories involve full sternotomies, I am curious why more of you didn't elect to have the MI procedure done. Was it for one of the reasons mentioned above or something else I missed?
Was it even offered as an option to you?
Were any of you given this option and turned it down? If so, why?
For those of you who have had it, how was the recovery time and pain?
Any other thoughts on this? Thanks.