A best-evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'is a minimally invasive approach for re-operative aortic valve replacement (AVR) superior to standard full resternotomy?' A total of 193 papers were found using the reported search of which 13 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, country, journal and date of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We conclude that minimally invasive re-operative AVR can be performed with an operative morbidity and mortality at least similar to the standard full sternotomy approach. A shorter hospital length of stay and less blood product requirements are the main advantages of this technique. The incidence of prolonged ventilation, bleeding requiring re-operation, sternal wound infections and in-hospital mortality may be reduced with a minimally invasive approach. Prospective studies are required to confirm the potential benefits of minimally invasive surgery and, up to date, conventional full re-sternotomy is still the standard approach for re-operative AVR.