A comparative study of minimal lower-sternal incision device closure, minimal right thoracic incision device closure, and midsternal open repair of isolated perimembranous VSD, a retrospective cohort study
Introduction
Surgical repair via midsternal incision is a standard and effective procedure for the treatment of ventricular septal defect (VSD) [1,2]. However, this procedure has shortcomings, including the potential injury during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), hemodilution requiring transfusion, slow postoperative recovery, and a larger incision. Transcatheter device closure of VSD is another conventional treatment with good clinical results, which has no incision, but it is still associated some potential risks, such as an incidence of third-degree AVB, potential vascular injury, X-ray radiation exposure [3,4]. In recent years, transthoracic device closure of VSD has been widely used in clinical practice [[5], [6], [7], [8]]. This procedure has the following advantages: avoidance of CPB, cosmetic incisions, reduced blood loss, and a quick postoperative recovery. The commonly used approaches for this procedure include minimal lower-sternal incision and via the minimal right thoracic incision. These two approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. As far as we know, there were no comparative studies for isolated perimembranous VSD closure using transthoracic device closure via a minimal lower-sternal incision, or minimal right thoracic incision, or surgical repair via the midsternal incision. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data and the follow-up data to summarize the characteristics of the different three therapeutic approaches which were conducted in our hospital.
Section snippets
Material and methods
The study was approved by the ethics committee of our university and strictly adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients' guardians signed informed consent forms which contained the advantages and disadvantages of the different treatments.
Results
The three groups of patients had satisfactory outcomes for VSD closure. As shown in Table 1, no significant differences in preoperative data were found between the three groups. Table 2 shows that compared with group C, the operative time, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, drainage volume, blood transfusion volume, length of the incision, and length of postoperative hospital stay were significantly reduced in the device groups (A and B). No significant differences in
Discussion
VSD is one of the most common congenital heart diseases, and perimembranous VSD is the most common type [[9], [10], [11]]. Since Lillehei performed the first repair of VSD under direct vision in the world in 1954 [12], well-developed surgical techniques and improvements in postoperative monitoring, have contributed to the meager mortality rate and good efficacy of the current surgical repair methods. Surgical repair has a wide range of indications and a high success rate [13,14]. This
Conclusion
All three therapeutic procedures are safe and effective and can achieve satisfactory early clinical efficacy. Transthoracic device closure via a minimal lower-sternal incision or minimal right thoracic incision have the advantages of less trauma and a quick recovery and can provide a better cosmetic appearance of the healed incision for patients with isolated perimembranous VSD.
Disclosure of grant(s) or other funding
This research was sponsored by Chinese national and Fujian provincial key clinical specialty construction programs.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
We highly acknowledge the contribution by the participating doctors: Dao-zhong Chen, Feng Lin, Qi-min Wang, Zhong-yao Huang, Xiao-fu Dai, Xue-Shan Huang, Dong-shan Liao. Also, we wish to extend our gratitude to all the anesthesiologists and perfusionists in our department.
References (26)
- et al.
Contemporary outcomes of surgical ventricular septal defect closure
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
(2013 Mar) - et al.
A meta-analysis of transcatheter device closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defect
Int. J. Cardiol.
(2018) - et al.
Perventricular device closure of restrictive perimembranous ventricular septal defects in 61 young children: early and midterm follow-up results
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
(2010) - et al.
Perventricular device closure of ventricular defects in 235 young children: a single-center experience
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
(2013) - et al.
Intraoperative device closure of isolated ventricular septal defects: experience on 1,090 cases
Ann. Thorac. Surg.
(2018) - et al.
Mid-term outcomes of common congenital heart defects corrected through a right subaxillary thoracotomy
Heart Lung Circ.
(2017 Apr) - et al.
Complete atrioventricular block after percutaneous device closure of restrictive perimembranous ventricular septal defect: a single-center experience on 1046 cases
Heart Rhythm.
(2015 Oct) - et al.
Risk factors and outcomes of post-procedure heart blocks after transcatheter device closure of restrictive perimembranous ventricular septal defect
JACC Cardiovasc Interv.
(2012 Apr) - et al.
Severe aortic regurgitation during percutaneous closure of ventricular septal defect
Int. J. Cardiol.
(2016 Jul 15) - et al.
Percutaneous closure of ventricular septal defect with membraneous pouch and changing the device due to severe aortic regurgitation
Int. J. Cardiol.
(2016 Apr 15)
Follow-up after surgical closure of congenital ventricular septal defect
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.
A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of transcatheter device closure of ventricularseptal defects (VSD)
J. Interv. Cardiol.
Minimally invasive transthoracic device closure of isolated ventricular septal defects without cardiopulmonary bypass: long-term follow-up results
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
Cited by (0)
- 1
These authors contributed equally to this study and shared the first authorship.