Surgical treatments for heart failure patients are being increasingly performed every year. While experiences in this field are increasing, transition to alternative surgical approaches to minimize incisions is gaining popularity. However, there are clinics that still avoid performing these techniques. In the current study, we aim to present our experiences in transitioning to a minimally invasive technique by comparing two groups. One group was operated with a minimally invasive technique that has been performed in the learning curve period, while the second was operated with a familiar and standard technique. One hundred twenty patients who were implanted with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) from April 2015 to January 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The first 30 LVAD-implanted patients via less invasive approach (since April 2017) were included in group 1, and the last 30 isolated LVAD implanted patients via standard full sternotomy were included in group 2. Early clinical outcomes were compared between these two groups. There were no significant differences between two groups in terms of demographic features and preoperative statuses. Group 1 had significantly lesser mortality rates, cardiopulmonary bypass times, drainages, and blood products. Hospital stays had no significant difference between the groups, while extubation times and ICU stays were significantly lesser in group 1. Left ventricular assist device implantation through thoracotomy and ministernotomy is as feasible as that done through the conventional full sternotomy technique. In this group of patients with a high risk of bleeding, besides providing less hemorrhage, we believe that the surgical procedure was not more difficult than the conventional method.