ArticleThe Annals of thoracic surgery2010
Minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach for mitral valve surgery: a propensity analysis.
Article in The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative Evaluation of the Incidence of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications After Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery vs. Full Sternotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity Score-Matched Studies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Anterolateral minithoracotomy versus median sternotomy for mitral valve disease: a meta-analysis.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2014Pooled it
- Rethinking Cardiopulmonary Bypass Management in The Digital Health Era.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Robotic and totally endoscopic cardiac surgery: redefining value, precision, and surgical strategy.Journal of visualized surgery · 2026Article
- Mitral Valve Repair in the Modern Era: Insights into Techniques and Technologies with a Glimpse of the Future.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Pushing boundaries in cardiac surgery: minimally invasive mitral valve repair combined with tricuspid valve repair and/or other concomitant procedures.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive approach associated with lower resource utilization after aortic and mitral valve surgery.JTCVS open · 2023Article
- Minimally-invasive cardiac surgery: a bibliometric analysis of impact and force to identify key and facilitating advanced training.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022Article
- Long-term results after mitral valve surgery using minimally invasive versus sternotomy approach: a propensity matched comparison of a large single-center series.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
- Endo-Aortic vs. Trans-Thoracic Clamping in Right Mini-Thoracotomy Mitral Valve Surgery: Outcome on Myocardial Protection.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery to maximally benefit patients-what is the key to success today and tomorrow?Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Learning curve in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: a single-center experience.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2019Article
- Mitral valve replacement via minimally invasive totally thoracoscopic surgery versus traditional median sternotomy: a propensity score matched comparative study.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Does full sternotomy have more significant impact than the cardiopulmonary bypass time in patients of mitral valve surgery?Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2018Observational
- The Opportunities and Limitations of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Review
- Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through a right mini-thoracotomy.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2016Review
- Is minimally invasive thoracoscopic surgery the new benchmark for treating mitral valve disease?Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOver the past decade, minimally invasive (MI) mitral valve surgery has grown in popularity. The purpose of this study was to compare both short- and long-term outcomes of mitral valve repair and replacement performed through a MI versus traditional sternotomy (ST) incision using a propensity analysis approach to account for differences in baseline risk.
methodsFrom January 2000 to December 2008, a total of 1,121 isolated mitral valve operations were performed at our institution (548 ST, 573 MI). Data were retrospectively collected on all patients, and a logistic regression model was created to predict selection to a MI versus ST approach. Propensity scores were then generated based on the regression model and matched pairs created using 1:1 nearest neighbor matching. There were 382 matched pairs in the analysis for a total sample size of 764, or 68.2% of the original cohort. Major outcomes of interest included cardiopulmonary bypass time, cross-clamp time, hospital length of stay, major in-hospital complications, and both short- and long-term survival.
resultsCardiopulmonary bypass time was 117.1 ± 2.0 minutes in the ST group and 139.7 ± 2.6 minutes in the MI group (p < 0.0001), and cross-clamp time was 79.6 ± 1.5 minutes in the ST group and 83.7 ± 1.9 in the MI group (p = 0.106). The average hospital length of stay was 9.81 ± 0.61 days among ST patients and 7.76 ± 0.37 days among MI patients (p = 0.0043). There was no significant difference in the frequency of major in-hospital complications between groups. The mean duration of survival follow-up was 4.2 ± 2.4 years. There was no significant difference in mortality at 30 days (p = 0.622) or 1 year (p = 0.599). In addition, there was no significant difference in long-term survival between groups (p = 0.569).
conclusionsAlthough minimally invasive mitral valve surgery required a slightly longer cardiopulmonary bypass time, there was no difference in cross-clamp time, morbidity, or mortality, and hospital length of stay was significantly shorter when compared with matched sternotomy control patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.