الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
Abstract
Introduction: Full median sternotomy has been well established as a standard approach for all types of open heart surgery for many years. Although well established, the full sternotomy incision has been frequently criticized for its length, post operative pain and possible complications. Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery can be an appealing feasible alternative to the conventional full sternotomy approach with low perioperative morbidity and short-term mortality. We here made meta-analysis to compare perioperative outcomes of MIMVS versus CMVS in patients with mitral valve disease.
Methods: A systematic review of studies comparing perioperative outcomes of MIMVS versus CMVS in patients with mitral valve disease, from 2012 up to 2017. Review Manager 5.2 (Cochrane Collaboration) was employed to analyze the results. The outcomes of interest are mortality, cerebrovascular accidents, wound infection, reexploration due to bleeding, and LVEF assessment post-surgery.
Results: 12 studies involving 10279 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The 30-day mortality was significantly decreased with MIMVS; 1.6% in the MIMVS group and 2.9% in the group treated through a conventional sternotomy. Cerebrovascular events were significantly decreased with MIMVS; the stroke rate was 0.9% in MIMVS patients and 3% in patients treated via a conventional sternotomy. Wound infections, reexploration due to bleeding, and LVEF did not differ significantly between both groups.
Conclusion: The perioperative outcome is more or less similar for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery and conventional mitral valve surgery performed via median sternotomy. Given balance in outcomes, MIMVS is at least as safe as the standard approach and can be considered a routine and standard approach for mitral valve surgery.