Minimally Invasive versus Full Sternotomy SAVR in the Era of TAVR: An Institutional Review

Tyler W. Wilson, Joshua J. Horns, Vikas Sharma, Matthew L. Goodwin, Hiroshi Kagawa, Sara J. Pereira, Stephen H. McKellar, Craig H. Selzman, Jason P. Glotzbach

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


In the era of advancing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technology, traditional open surgery remains a valuable intervention for patients who are not TAVR candidates. We sought to compare perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive and full sternotomy surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at a single institution. A retrospective analysis of 113 patients who underwent isolated SAVR via full sternotomy or upper hemi-sternotomy between January 2015 and December 2019 at the University of Utah Hospital was performed. Preoperative comorbidities and demographic information were not different among groups, with the exception of diabetes, which was significantly more common in the full sternotomy group (p = 0.01). Median procedure length was numerically shorter in the minimally invasive group but was not significant following the Bonferroni correction (p = 0.047). Other perioperative variables were not significantly different. The two groups showed no difference in the incidence of postoperative adverse events (p = 0.879). As such, minimally invasive SAVR via hemi-sternotomy remains a safe and effective alternative to full sternotomy for patients who meet the criteria for aortic valve replacement.

Original languageEnglish
Article number547
JournalJournal of Clinical Medicine
Issue number3
StatePublished - Feb 1 2022


  • Aortic valve replacement
  • Hemi-sternotomy
  • Median sternotomy
  • Minimally invasive


Dive into the research topics of 'Minimally Invasive versus Full Sternotomy SAVR in the Era of TAVR: An Institutional Review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this