A comparison of minimally invasive and standard aortic valve replacement Jarosław Stoliński, MD, PhD, Dariusz Plicner, MD, PhD, Grzegorz Grudzień, MD, PhD, Marcin Wąsowicz, MD, PhD, Robert Musiał, MD, Janusz Andres, MD, PhD, Bogusław Kapelak, MD, PhD The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Volume 152, Issue 4, Pages 1030-1039 (October 2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.06.012 Copyright © 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
Figure 1 Trends over time of aortic crossclamp time (A), CPB time (B), operation time (C), and postoperative drainage (D) in the RT-AVR group. Data are presented as mean values, and confidence limits are included. 2010 (n = 44), 2011 (n = 56), 2012 (n = 51), 2013 (n = 60). Details are described in the “Results” section. CPB, Cardiopulmonary bypass. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2016 152, 1030-1039DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.06.012) Copyright © 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
Operation time indicating a learning curve for RT-AVR surgery. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2016 152, 1030-1039DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.06.012) Copyright © 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions
Video 1 Aortic valve replacement through a right anterior minithoracotomy. Video available at http://www.jtcvsonline.org/article/S0022-5223(16)30570-0/addons. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2016 152, 1030-1039DOI: (10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.06.012) Copyright © 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Terms and Conditions