Quality of Life and Pain Syndrome in Patients With Thoracic Aorta Repair Using a Mini-Sternotomy

Aim      To determine the effect of minimally invasive interventions on the quality of life (QoL), pain syndrome, and cosmetic effect in patients with a pathology of chest aorta as compared with a group of traditional access.

Material and methods  From 2016 through 2020, 77 of 226 (34%) patients with an aneurysm in the proximal chest aorta and mini-sternotomy were prospectively selected starting from 2017. To evaluate differences between the effects of mini-sternotomy and the traditional access on QoL and pain syndrome a control group of patients with full sternotomy (n=77) was formed using pseudorandomization. Intergroup comparison of QoL, pain syndrome, and cosmetic parameters was performed at various time points.

Results Mini-sternotomy provided a decrease in pain syndrome both during the early period (day 3), and during movements upon discharge. Also, mini-sternotomy decreased the duration of stay in the hospital compared to full sternotomy (8.1±2.1 vs. 8.9±2.5 days, respectively; р>0.0331). A more frequent use of analgesics by patients with full sternotomy was noted. Mini-sternotomy was associated with a faster recovery of most QoL parameters according to the SF-36 questionnaire at one year after surgery. The questionnaire included summarizing parameters of physical and mental health components (Physical Health Component, Physical Health (PH): 54.3±11.9 vs. 58.2±8.2, respectively; p=0.046; Mental Health Component, Mental Health (MH): 53.8±6.8 vs. 57.8±9.5, respectively; p=0.013). In addition, patients with minimal access showed higher values of the cosmetic effect by a 5-score scale (4.08±0.8 vs. 4.39±0.8, respectively; p=0.049) and a greater interest to having a minimal access surgery.

Conclusion      Mini-sternotomy beneficially influences the pain syndrome, cosmetic outcome, and QoL and provides a shorter duration of rehabilitation and a sooner return to work and everyday life compared to full sternotomy.

1. Rao PN, Kumar AS. Aortic valve replacement through right thoracotomy. Texas Heart Institute Journal. 1993;20(4):307–8. PMID: 8298332

2. Holmes SD, Fornaresio LM, Shuman DJ, Pritchard G, Ad N. HealthRelated Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery. Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery. 2016;11(2):128–33. DOI: 10.1097/imi.0000000000000255

3. Walther T, Falk V, Metz S, Diegeler A, Battellini R, Autschbach R et al. Pain and quality of life after minimally invasive versus conventional cardiac surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 1999;67(6):1643–7. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00284-2

4. Dogan S, Dzemali O, Wimmer-Greinecker G, Derra P, Doss M, Khan MF et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized trial. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease. 2003;12(1):76–80. PMID: 12578340

5. Bonacchi M, Prifti E, Giunti G, Frati G, Sani G. Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2002;73(2):460–5. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-4975(01)03402-6

6. Calderon J, Richebe P, Guibaud JP, Coiffic A, Branchard O, Asselineau J et al. Prospective Randomized Study of Early Pulmonary Evaluation of Patients Scheduled for Aortic Valve Surgery Performed by Ministernotomy or Total Median Sternotomy. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 2009;23(6):795–801. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2009.03.011

7. Harky A, Al-Adhami A, Chan JSK, Wong CHM, Bashir M. Minimally Invasive Versus Conventional Aortic Root Replacement - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Heart, Lung and Circulation. 2019;28(12):1841–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.hlc.2018.10.023

8. Rayner TA, Harrison S, Rival P, Mahoney DE, Caputo M, Angelini GD et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional surgery of the ascending aorta and root: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2020;57(1):8–17. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz177

9. The Whoqol Group. The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine. 1998;46(12):1569–85. DOI: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00009-4

10. Amonn K, Stortecky S, Brinks H, Gahl B, Windecker S, Wenaweser P et al. Quality of life in high-risk patients: comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement†. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 2013;43(1):34–42. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezs173

11. Shan L, Saxena A, McMahon R, Wilson A, Newcomb A. A systematic review on the quality of life benefits after aortic valve replacement in the elderly. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2013;145(5):1173–89. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.01.004

12. Burckhardt CS, Anderson KL. The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS): reliability, validity, and utilization. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):60. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-60

13. Hardt J. A new questionnaire for measuring quality of life - the Stark QoL. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):174. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-015-0367-5

14. Goruleva M.V., Ganenko O.S., Коvaltcova R.S., Kutuzova A.E., Petrova N.N., Demchemnko E.A. et al. Quality of life and psycho-cognitive condition in patients after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2014;19(9):68–71. DOI: 10.15829/1560-4071-2014-9-68-71

15. Nikonov S.F., Olofinskaya I.E., Bagiyan L.S. A study of the quality of life in elderly patients after heart surgery. Quality Clinical Practice. 2003;1:56–9.

16. Charchyan E.R., Breshenkov D.G., Belov Yu.V. Minimally invasive approach in thoracic aortic surgery: a single center experience. Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2019;12(6):522–35. DOI: 10.17116/kardio201912061522

17. Muratov R.M., Shamsiev G.A., Midinov A.Sh., Babenko S.I., Chekaeva T.V. J-shaped mini-sternotomy in surgical treatment of pathology of the aorta and aortic valve after cardiac surgical intervention performed earlier. Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2013;3:4–8.

18. Snegirev M.A., Payvin A.A., Khubulava G.G. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2016;58(1):23–9.

19. Boldyrev S.Yu., Kaleda V.I., Efremenko Yu.V., Barbukhatti K.O., Porkhanov V.A. Minimally invasive ascending aortic replacement in patient with chronic aortic dissection type A. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2019;3:80–3. DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia201903180

20. Chernov I.I., Makeev S.A., Kozmin D.Yu., Tarasov D.G. Multivalve heart surgery through a mini-access. Clinical and Experimental Surgery. Petrovsky journal. 2018;6(1(19)):21–6.

21. Rosseikin E.V., Kobzev E.E., Bazylev V.V. Minimally invasive Ozaki technique. Angiology and vascular surgery. 2019;25(3):142–55. DOI: 10.33529/ANGI02019319

22. Belov Yu.V., Gens A.P., Stepanenko A.B. Mini-access aortic valve replacement. Grekov’s Bulletin of Surgery. 1998;157(3):47–9.

23. Charchyan E.R., Breshenkov D.G., Belov Yu.V. Results of Minimally Invasive Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Valve Surgery: Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Kardiologiia. 2020;60(7):91–7. DOI: 10.18087/cardio.2020.7.n1098

24. Akopov G.A., Govorova T.N., Ivanov A.S. Valve-sparing operations on the aortic valve and the ascending aorta: radical correction of congenital and acquired heart diseases. Immediate outcomes. Russian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2021;23(1):84–90. DOI: 10.15825/1995-1191-2021-1-84-90

25. Massetti M, Babatasi G, Rossi A, Neri E, Bhoyroo S, Zitouni S et al. Operation for atrial septal defect through a right anterolateral thoracotomy: Current outcome. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 1996;62(4):1100–3. DOI: 10.1016/0003-4975(96)00440-7

26. Massetti M, Nataf P, Babatasi G, Khayat A. Cosmetic aspects in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. 1999;16(Suppl 2):S73-75. PMID: 10613561