BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT article
Front. Cardiovasc. Med.
Sec. Cardiovascular Surgery
This article is part of the Research TopicRevolutionizing Aortic Repair: Advanced Surgical and Endovascular Techniques for Comprehensive Aortic Management from the Aortic Valve to the Abdominal AortaView all 6 articles
Upper Hemisternotomy versus Full Sternotomy for Hemiarch and Proximal Aortic Replacement
Provisionally accepted
- Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, United States
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Hemiarch replacement with proximal aortic replacement is seldom performed via upper hemisternotomy (UHS). We report our surgical technique and postoperative outcomes in 11 patients who underwent UHS for hemiarch and proximal aortic replacement, compared with 15 patients who underwent the procedure via full sternotomy (FS). Methods: A UHS was performed at the right third or fourth intercostal space. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was established via the distal ascending aorta or right axillary artery and right common femoral vein. After aortic cross-clamping (ACC), the heart was arrested with single-dose antegrade crystalloid cardioplegia. After proximal aortic replacement, hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) between 20–24°C was initiated with bilateral antegrade or retrograde cerebral perfusion, and hemiarch replacement performed. Results: Between February and December 2010, 15 patients (median age 67 yr) underwent hemiarch repair with proximal aortic replacement using FS. From April 2015 to February 2019, 11 patients (median age 74 yr) underwent the same procedure via UHS. Median CPB, ACC, and HCA times were 192 min vs. 185 min (P = 0.72), 105 min vs. 157 min (P = 0.03), and 5 min vs. 15 min (P = 0.95) for UHS and FS, respectively. There were no in-hospital deaths. Survival at 1 and 5 yr was 100% and 72.7% in the UHS group, and 100% and 80% in the FS group (P = 0.13, P = 1.0). Conclusions: Low morbidity and mortality demonstrate that UHS for combined hemiarch and proximal aortic replacement is safe and feasible. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Keywords: Upper hemisternotomy, hemiarch, proximal aortic replacement, antegrade cerebral perfusion, retrograde, Myocardial protection
Received: 13 Jun 2025; Accepted: 28 Nov 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Zucker, Chen, Shah, King, Mcgee, Mccoy and Plestis. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Jeffrey Zucker
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.