Comparison of Early Postoperative Outcomes Between Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery Via Right Thoracotomy and Conventional Valve Surgery Via Sternotomy.

Overview

This randomized controlled trial aims to compare early postoperative outcomes between Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery (MIVS) via right thoracotomy and Conventional Valve Surgery via median sternotomy in patients undergoing elective, isolated mitral or aortic valve surgery. Minimally invasive techniques are believed to reduce postoperative pain, ventilation time, chest drain output, and wound complications, but evidence from Pakistan is limited. The study will enroll patients of all ages and genders who are scheduled for isolated valvular procedures at Chaudhary Pervaiz Elahi Institute of Cardiology (CPEIC), Multan. Participants will be randomly assigned to undergo either minimally invasive thoracotomy or conventional sternotomy. Primary outcomes include ventilation time, CPB duration, cross-clamp time, pain scores, and chest drain output. Secondary outcomes include wound healing (Day 7 and 30 days), return to routine activity, echocardiographic evaluation, transfusion requirements, and 30-day mortality. Findings from this study may provide evidence to guide the adoption of minimally invasive valvular surgery techniques in low-resource and developing settings.

Valvular heart disease is a significant contributor to cardiovascular morbidity worldwide and often requires surgical intervention. Although median sternotomy provides excellent exposure for valve repair and replacement, it is associated with increased surgical trauma, prolonged recovery time, higher postoperative pain, and cosmetically visible scarring. Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery (MIVS) through a right thoracotomy has emerged as a promising alternative approach, offering advantages such as smaller incisions, reduced postoperative discomfort, shorter hospitalization, and improved cosmetic outcomes-without compromising procedural safety. International evidence demonstrates comparable mortality and valve repair quality between the two techniques, with additional benefits favoring minimally invasive approaches such as reduced transfusion needs and fewer sternal wound complications. However, data from Pakistan remain sparse. This randomized controlled trial is designed to evaluate the early postoperative outcomes of MIVS versus conventional sternotomy in a tertiary cardiac surgery center in Pakistan. Eligible patients undergoing elective, isolated mitral or aortic valve surgery will be randomized using a computer-generated sequence to one of two groups: Group A (MIVS): Right anterolateral thoracotomy with femoral cannulation and transthoracic aortic clamping. Group B (Sternotomy): Median sternotomy with standard central cannulation. Both groups will receive standardized anesthesia, cardiopulmonary bypass protocols, myocardial protection strategies, and postoperative ICU care. The surgical procedures will be performed by experienced cardiac surgeons, and all perioperative variables will be recorded using a structured proforma. Primary Outcomes Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time Aortic cross-clamp time Duration of mechanical ventilation Postoperative pain score (NRS at 12 and 24 hours) Total chest drain output in the first 24 hours Secondary Outcomes PRBC transfusion requirement Wound condition on postoperative day 7 Echocardiographic findings before discharge and at 30 days Return to routine daily activity by 30 days 30-day all-cause mortality Patients will be followed for 30 days after surgery. Data will be analyzed using IBM SPSS v25. Continuous variables will be compared using an independent samples t-test, while categorical variables will be assessed via the Chi-square test. A p-value of \<0.05 will be considered statistically significant. This study aims to provide local evidence comparing the two surgical approaches and help determine whether minimally invasive valve surgery should be more widely adopted as a preferred option in tertiary cardiac surgical practice.