Surgical approach for anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery: A comparison of two techniques

Background Un-roofing is the most common technique utilized for repair of anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery (AAOCA). There are very few publications directly comparing un-roofing to another surgical technique, like reimplantation. Methods The prospectively collected Children's Memorial Hermann Heart Institute Society of Thoracic Surgeon's Database was retrospectively reviewed from 2007 to 2021. Surgical patients were included if they underwent un-roofing or reimplantation of the AAOCA. The primary outcomes of this study were operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes. Secondary outcomes included angiographic outcomes, aortic regurgitation incidence, ventricular function, and symptom relief. Results From 2007 to 2021, there were 12 patients who underwent either a reimplantation (n = 9, 73%) or un-roofing (n = 3, 27%) for an AAOCA. The hospital length of stay was a median of 1.8 days longer for reimplantation compared to un-roofing. The last follow-up echocardiogram was a median of 52.2 days later in the reimplantation group. There was one patient (11%) in the reimplantation group that had more than or equal to mild aortic regurgitation and mild systolic ventricular dysfunction. Outpatient follow-up was incomplete and there was no postoperative computed tomographic angiography in the un-roofing cohort. Conclusions Coronary artery reimplantation is a valuable alternative surgical technique to un-roofing for the repair of AAOCA. There are still some concerns with the creation of aortic regurgitation or incomplete symptom relief with any surgical technique. Longer-term follow-up and prospective studies will be needed to show an effective reduction of myocardial ischemia and risk of sudden cardiac death.