Objective: To compare the efficacy, advantages and disadvantages of percutaneous interventional occlusion and surgical minimally invasive occlusion in the treatment of ventricular septal defect, and to provide a basis for clinical treatment options. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 138 cases of ventricular septal defect treated with percutaneous interventional occlusion (interventional group) and surgical minimally invasive occlusion (surgical group) in our hospital from March 2007 to January 2011, among which 82 cases were treated with percutaneous interventional occlusion and 56 cases were treated with surgical minimally invasive occlusion. The efficacy, complications and prognosis of the two groups were compared. Results: Among the 82 cases in the interventional group, 2 cases failed to be occluded, and the success rate of the operation was 97.6%. Complications occurred in 12 cases, with an incidence rate of 14.6%. The operation time was 30.18±18.24 min, the postoperative hospitalization time was 6.88±0.35 days, and the hospitalization cost was 30.01±0.11 million yuan. In the surgical group, there were 49 cases of successful minimally invasive occlusion in 56 cases, with a surgical success rate of 88%, 7 cases of failed intraoperative occlusion transferred to conventional open-heart surgery, 29 cases of complications occurred, with a complication rate of 51.8%, an operative time of 79.87±23.58 min, a postoperative hospital stay of 6.72±1.05 days, and a hospitalization cost of 3.26±0.23 million yuan. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment methods can effectively treat simple ventricular septal defect. Percutaneous interventional occlusion treatment is the preferred method for ventricular defect treatment because of short operative time, small trauma, few complications, low cost and no blood transfusion.