In this descriptive prospective study, we evaluate the outcomes of surgery in 98 patients who were scheduled to undergo minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. These patients were compared with a group of 50 patients who underwent scheduled aortic valve replacement through a full sternotomy. The 30-day mortality rate for the 98 patients was zero, although 14 of the 98 mini-sternotomies had to be converted to complete sternotomies intraoperatively due to technical problems. Such conversion doubled the operative time over that of the planned full sternotomies. In the group of patients whose operations were completed as mini-sternotomies, 4 died later of noncardiac causes. The aortic cross-clamp and perfusion times were significantly different across all groups (P < 0.001), with the intended full-sternotomy group having the shortest times. In conclusion, the mini-aortic valve replacement is an excellent operation in selected patients, but its true advantages over conventional aortic valve replacement (other than a smaller scar) await evaluation by means of randomized clinical trial. The "extended mini-aortic valve replacement" operation, on the other hand, is a risky procedure that should be avoided by better preoperative evaluation of patients. In any event, the decision to extend a mini-sternotomy to a full sternotomy should be made early in the course of operation, before cardiopulmonary bypass is instituted.