Background: Valve-sparing aortic root replacement such as the re-implantation (David) procedure is becoming increasingly popular. Despite the fact that the procedure is technically more complex, long-term studies demonstrated that excellent clinical outcomes in selected patients with durable repair are achievable. Benefits of minimal access cardiac surgery have stimulated enthusiasm in the use of this approach for valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Methods: We have reviewed available literature on the topic of valve-sparing aortic root replacement (David procedure) via minimally invasive approach through upper hemisternotomy in an attempt to assess current trends and to recognize potential advantages of this technique. Patient selection and preoperative work-up play important role in performing minimally invasive David procedure safely. Surgical technique is similar to the standard David procedure, with several exceptions, and is performed via upper hemisternotomy. Results and Conclusion: Evidence from non-randomized observational and comparative studies demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes of minimally invasive David procedure in selected patients with comparable perioperative mortality to the conventional technique. To date, elective David procedure with a minimal access technique has been performed in low- and intermediate-risk patients. We believe that minimally invasive David procedure could be particularly useful in young patients (Marfan syndrome, bicuspid AV) as it allows faster recovery with improved cosmesis. A decision to perform minimally invasive David procedure should be individualized to each patient and based on the experience of the team. Further large prospective randomized studies with long-term follow-up are still needed to confirm durability of minimal access technique.

OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to understand the challenges faced by early adopters of MIS mitral surgery in the national health system in the United Kingdom. It was to (i) capture the significance of the scrutiny introduced by reporting surgeon specific results during the introduction of surgical innovation, (ii) understand how individual personality and behaviour helped these surgeons succeed despite, in many cases, little wider support, (iii) to help more surgeons adopt these patient-centred techniques. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS The study is based on a qualitative exploration of the reported experiences of all ten early adopters of MIS cardiac surgery in the NHS between 2006-2016. Interviewees were recruited by invitation through their professional society (BISMICS). All interviewees consented to the process; ethical permission was not deemed necessary. RESULTS The experience of introducing surgical innovation into the NHS was unanimously noted to be difficult with few incentives and many systemic and institutional obstacles. Despite this there was a general belief in pushing forward with these patient centred procedures while accumulating the evidence to support it. CONCLUSIONS Individual determination, confidence, mental agility and self-reflection were seen as characteristics of those who were successful. All surgeons agreed that the reporting of surgeon specific results were not conducive to adoption of innovation in teams. Starting a new program as two surgeons appeared to help reduce perceived pressures. Surgical innovation and its early adoption are always likely to be difficult and needs to be recognised as such, within the NHS