Aim: To study the pros and cons of surgery without releasing adhesions in post CMV (Closed Mitral Vulvotomy) patients

Materials and Methods: A total of 42 patients underwent Mitral valve replacement between October 2017- January 2019. Of these 20 patients underwent MVR using the novel approach and 22 patients went for conventional MVR. The difference in operative approach involved incomplete pericardiotomy.

Result: Time to initiate cardiopulmonary bypass was significantly longer in case of conventional procedure as compared to the modification. However Cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross clamp times, which point to the technical ease of operation, were similar in both cases .Fall in hematocrit was slightly more in the conventional group which signifies increased incidence of blood loss in conventional procedure. The  noted complications were slightly different between the two groups, conventional group showed a high incidence of chamber injury  and injury to coronary arteries

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that surgery for mitral valves in post CMV patients can be done equally effectively without releasing the dense adhesions between pericardium and cardiac chamber which is a tedious, difficult and time consuming procedures. Since the total time required for operation was less in the alternative method, this would mean shorter period of General Anesthesia which is beneficial for the patient, the surgeon and the anesthetist concerned.

Mesh Terms: Redo MVR, CMV, Cardiopulmonary bypass.

1. Mathur KS, Wahal PK. Epidemiology of Rheumatic Heart Disease – a study of 29,922 school children. Indian heart journal1982;34:367-71
2. Suman Bhandari, K Subramanyam, N Trehan. Valvular Heart Disease: Diagnosis and Management
3. Nulu s, Bukhman G, Kwan GF(February 2017) “ Rheumatic Heart Disease : The unfinished global agenda”. Cardiology Clinics.35(1):165-180
4. N. Manjunath, P Srinivas, K S Ravindranath, C. Dhanalakshmi: Incidence and patterns of valvular heart disease in a tertiary care high –volume centre cardiac centre: A single centre experience; Indian Heart Journal ,2014 May; 66(3):320-326
5. Chockalingam A, Gnanavelu G, Elangovan S, Chockalingam V:Clinical spectrum of chronic rheumatic heart disease in India; Journal Heart Valve Disease ,2003 Sep;12(5):577-81
6. Cutler EC, Levine SA, Becj CS. Surgical treatment of mitral stenosis: Experimemtal and clinical studies. ArchSurg 1924;9:689-821
7. Harken DE, Ellis LB, Ware PF, Norman LR. The surgical treatment of mitral stenosis: IV alvuloplasty. N Engl Journal of Medicine 1948;22:801-809
8. S John,V V Bashi ,P S Jairaj, S Muralidharan, E Ravikumar, T Rajarajeshwari, S Krishnaswami, I P Sukumar, and P S Rao: Closed mitral vulvotomy : early results and long term follow upof 3724 consecutive patients; AHA Nov 1983, Circulation 1983;68:891-896
9. Krishnakant Sahu; Closed Mitral Vulvotomy versus Balloon valvoplasty: Aprospective Comparative study of 100 cases; Health Science Journal: January 2016
10. Stanley John, K M Shyam Prasad, Edwin Ravikumar, Colin John, P SJairaj, S krishnaswamy: Closed Commisurotomy for mitral stenosis: Obsolete or Relevant? :Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery: June 1991,volume 7,issue 1,:8-1
11. Chalak Berzingi, Vinay Badhwar, Fahad Alqahtani, Sami Aljohani, Zakeih Chaker, mohamad Alkhouli; Contemporary outcomes of isolated bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement for mitral regurgitation: Open Heart: August 2018;
12. Rutledge R ,Mcintosh CL, Morrow AG, Picken CA, Siwek LG, Zwischenberger JB, Schier JJ ; Mitral valve replacement after closed mitral commisurotomy; Circulation; August 1982;66:1162-66.

Dr Tinni Mitra

NRS Medical College