ArticlePeerJ2018
Early and long-term results of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through a right mini-thoracotomy approach: a retrospective propensity-score matched analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bretschneider (Custodiol®) and St. Thomas 2 Cardioplegia Solution in Mitral Valve Repair via Anterolateral Right Thoracotomy: A Propensity-Modelled Comparison.Mediators of inflammation · 2019Trial
- Mitral reoperations, reimagined.JTCVS structural and endovascular · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve surgery: A propensity score matching analysis.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2023Article
- Safety and Efficacy of the Transaxillary Access for Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery-A Propensity Matched Competitive Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive or sternotomy approach in mitral valve surgery: a propensity-matched comparison.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2021Article
- 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
- Article
- Surgical treatment of infective endocarditis in the era of minimally invasive cardiac surgery and transcatheter approach: an editorial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MVS) via right mini-thoracotomy has recently attracted a lot of attention. Minimally invasive MVS shows postoperative results that are comparable to those of conventional MVS through the median sternotomy as per various earlier studies.
methodsBetween 2000 and 2016, a total of 669 isolated mitral valve procedures for isolated mitral valve regurgitation were performed. A propensity score-matched analysis was generated for the elimination of the differences in relevant preoperative risk factors between the cohorts and included 227 patient pairs. Only degenerative mitral valve regurgitation was included. The aim of our study was to examine if the minimally MVS is superior to the conventional approach through sternotomy based on a retrospective propensity-matched analysis. The primary endpoints were early mortality and long-term survival. The secondary endpoints included postoperative complications.
resultsThe in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher within the conventional sternotomy cohort (3.1%,
conclusionDespite prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamping times, the minimally invasive MVS may be considered a safe approach that is equivalent to standard median sternotomy with lower early mortality and superior long-term survival.
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.