Aortic valve disease is the most common valvular disease and the aortic valve is the most commonly replaced valve. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the standard treatment for patients suffering from severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis or regurgitation. It was first performed in 1960 through a median sternotomy incision. The traditional method is via a full sternotomy, but this long midline incision may not heal properly, cause significant pain and may be associated with a prolonged recovery. Over the last two decades, a minimally-invasive approach to AVR has been adopted by some surgeons. The term “minimally-invasive cardiac surgery” refers to “any procedure not performed without a full sternotomy or cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) support”. Examples of the minimally-invasive approach include a right anterior minithoracotomy and a mini sternotomy. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients who have undergone a minimally-invasive AVR with patients who have undergone a conventional AVR with the hypothesis being that AVR via mini sternotomy is non inferior to the full sternotomy approach and is potentially more beneficial for patients. The objectives include characterising the profile of the patient population who have undergone both procedures, examinimg the clinical outcomes for patients and comparing the outcomes for both groups identified. The work is expected to establish that AVR via mini sternotomy is a safe alternative to the traditional approach in terms of clinical outcomes for patients. The surgical uptake of this type of procedure has been patchy at best since its introduction in 1996. This has been possibly due to the belief that there is no surgical benefit when compared to a conventional AVR. This study aims to dispel this theory and prove that minimally-invasive AVRs are a safe and effective alternative to the full sternotomy approach.
