J
JenniferO
I am posting several messages to the forums today on various issues.
One I would like to hear responses to is the question of minimally invasive methods i.e. right thoracotomy (sometimes known as the Heartport method) or partial sternotomy (either upper or lower). I have had countless conversations with surgeons and/or staff who are either great supporters or great opponents of these methods. The right thoracotomy seems to be the most controversial. The upper partial sternotomy method is what is used by Dr. Cosgrove. The lower partial sternotomy is used by another excellent cardiac surgeon, Dr. Lawrence Cohn of Boston. Most of the major teaching hospitals in the country seem to have adopted something less invasive than the full median sternotomy which has been the traditional approach for the last 30 years.
The opponents of the minimally invasive methods always give the reason "access" as the problem. However, the excellent surgeons who have persevered to become comfortable with the minimally invasive methods say they have absolutely all the access they need.
I was considering NYU and the mini thoracotomy method used very successfully by Dr. Stephen Colvin there for my mitral valve repair. I have now had so many warnings against it, I am hesitant to proceed in that direction.
While the marketing is that the mini-methods reduce time in the ICU, the hospital, and recovery time. there is quite a lot of literature that suggests that is not the case and that pain and recovery time is just as great as with the full sternotomy. There is even literature that suggests that the right thoracotomy is more painful than any of the sternotomy methods.
As a female, anything that results in a shorter incision than the full sternotomy seems desirable to me, though repair of my mitral valve is surely paramount.
I am just wondering who on these boards has had experience with the mini-methods.
One I would like to hear responses to is the question of minimally invasive methods i.e. right thoracotomy (sometimes known as the Heartport method) or partial sternotomy (either upper or lower). I have had countless conversations with surgeons and/or staff who are either great supporters or great opponents of these methods. The right thoracotomy seems to be the most controversial. The upper partial sternotomy method is what is used by Dr. Cosgrove. The lower partial sternotomy is used by another excellent cardiac surgeon, Dr. Lawrence Cohn of Boston. Most of the major teaching hospitals in the country seem to have adopted something less invasive than the full median sternotomy which has been the traditional approach for the last 30 years.
The opponents of the minimally invasive methods always give the reason "access" as the problem. However, the excellent surgeons who have persevered to become comfortable with the minimally invasive methods say they have absolutely all the access they need.
I was considering NYU and the mini thoracotomy method used very successfully by Dr. Stephen Colvin there for my mitral valve repair. I have now had so many warnings against it, I am hesitant to proceed in that direction.
While the marketing is that the mini-methods reduce time in the ICU, the hospital, and recovery time. there is quite a lot of literature that suggests that is not the case and that pain and recovery time is just as great as with the full sternotomy. There is even literature that suggests that the right thoracotomy is more painful than any of the sternotomy methods.
As a female, anything that results in a shorter incision than the full sternotomy seems desirable to me, though repair of my mitral valve is surely paramount.
I am just wondering who on these boards has had experience with the mini-methods.