Background: There is increasing interest in minimally invasive cardiac surgery coronary artery bypass surgery outcomes as alternative surgical interference to conventional sternotomy. Minimally invasive coronary surgery was preferred due to its lower morbidity and less hospital stay.
Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery versus conventional surgery via sternotomy.
Patients and Methods: This study included one hundred patients presented with diagnostic indications for the coronary artery bypass grafting coronary according to coronary angiography results. Patients operated either by minimally invasive or conventional techniques via sternotomy. All patients followed up using Echocardiography parameters that was compared preoperatively and postoperatively within 3 months.
Results: Included patients had mean age (50.6 ±11.5). There was female predominance (66 %).  Most of included patients known to be hypertensive as 92% of cases in group A, and 86% of cases in group B. Postoperative echocardiography showed significant difference between both groups as compared with preoperativee values for each group separately.
Conclusion: Comparing open coronary artery bypass surgery and minimally invasive coronary artery bypass approaches, there are similar accepted perioperative outcomes.