Abstract
Objectives: In recent years, minimally invasive approaches have been used with increasing frequency, even for more complex aortic procedures. However, evidence on the practicability and safety of expanding minimally invasive techniques from isolated operations of the ascending aorta towards more complex operations such as the hemiarch replacement is still scarce to date. Methods: A total of 86 patients undergoing elective surgical replacement of the ascending aorta with (n = 40) or without (n = 46) concomitant proximal aortic arch replacement between 2009 and 2023 were analyzed in a retrospective single-center analysis. Groups were compared regarding operation times, intra- and postoperative complications and long-term survival. Results: Operation times and ventilation times were significantly longer in the hemiarch replacement group. Despite this, no statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed for the duration of the ICU and hospital stay and postoperative complication rates. At ten-year follow-up, overall survival was 82.6% after isolated ascending aorta replacement and 86.3% after hemiarch replacement (p = 0.441). Conclusions: Expanding the indication for minimally invasive aortic surgery towards the proximal aortic arch resulted in comparable postoperative complication rates, length of hospital stay and overall long-term survival compared to the well-established minimally invasive isolated supracommissural ascending aorta replacement.