Median sternotomy has long been the standard approach for repairing congenital heart defects; however, its associated complications have prompted a transition to thoracotomy. Evidence from surgical experience suggests that less invasive cardiac and thoracic procedures are associated with diminished postoperative discomfort and pain, expedited return to work and daily activities, enhanced healing and aesthetic outcomes, reduced length of hospital stay, and, consequently, lower costs for patients. The primary benefit of less invasive surgical techniques lies in their ability to circumvent a complete sternotomy. This approach minimizes tissue damage and reduces contamination at the surgical site, consequently lowering the incidence of postoperative infections, including mediastinal infections, as well as postoperative pain (
10).
The use of RAMT offers several advantages for patients. This technique involves a smaller incision, leading to reduced surgical trauma and minimal adhesions behind the sternum, which facilitates future mediastinal surgeries. Additionally, RAMT preserves the stability and integrity of the thoracic cage, resulting in lower pain levels, enhanced postoperative recovery, and a quicker return to daily activities. Studies have also indicated that this approach requires fewer resources and leads to shorter hospital stays, ultimately reducing costs (
11).
Conversely, some drawbacks associated with RAMT include reported cases of breast and pectoral muscle maldevelopment, occurring in 7.4% of patients (
12), and the potential for phrenic nerve injury (
13). However, another study found no significant breast deformities or phrenic nerve injuries during long-term follow-up (
14). The results showed that RAMT was a safe method with comparable or even superior results in some aspects, such as postoperative drainage, surgical incision length, and ICU stay. These results are consistent with the study by Poyrazoglu et al. (
15), which recommended the RAMT approach as a safe incision compared to sternotomy, with less drainage, reduced transfusion rate, and shorter ICU stay.
The limitations of our study include its retrospective design and the fact that all surgeries were performed by a single surgeon but in two centers, which may result in variations in other cardiac centers. Additionally, further analysis of long-term follow-up data is necessary.