The aim of this study was to compare two groups of patients who had aortic stenosis as a reason for surgery, but the difference was in the surgical technique and the outcome after the procedure in patients who received classic Trifecta valve and those who received sutureless Perceval S valve and indicated a better postoperative outcome in the group to which the sutureless prosthesis was implanted. The hypothesis set at the beginning of this research was that patients who received a sutureless aortic valve had shorter time of aortic clamping and shorter surgery, which directly affected the fact that these patients had faster recovery, better ejection fraction of the heart and shorter hospital stay perioperative, as opposed to patients who received the classic Trifecta valve. After comparing the data obtained from the observed groups, the hypothesis proved to be correct. All the benefits provided by the sutureless aortic valve versus the classical conventional method with the Trifecta valve have been confirmed. The study also examined the postoperative complications of the procedure itself. Among the most common parameters that are part of possible postoperative complications after bioprosthesis insertion is paravalvular bleeding that has been demonstrated in only one patient who received a sutureless valve, as opposed to six who received a classic prosthesis requiring multiple sutures.