ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2020
The learning curve of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mini-Sternotomy vs. Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Surgery: State-of-the-Art Review of Transaxillary, Thoracotomy, and Ministernotomy Approaches.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Benefit of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation on minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through right lateral mini-thoracotomy using femoral cannulation: a propensity-matched analysis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Aortic Valve Replacement: Totally Endoscopic versus Mini-Sternotomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement in Contemporary Practice: Clinical and Hemodynamic Performance from a Prospective Multicenter Trial.The Thoracic and cardiovascular surgeon · 2023Article
- Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement.Perfusion · 2023Article
- Sutureless aortic bioprosthesis: Competitor or alternative for transcatheter aortic valve implantation? Single center experience with Perceval valves.Cardiology journal · 2022Article
- Right Anterior Minithoracotomy Approach for Aortic Valve Replacement.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Review
- Learning curve of two-incision thoracoscopic double valve replacement: Cumulative sum analysis of postoperative outcomes and proficiency in 252 operations from a single high-volume center.Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular diseaseArticle
- Minimally Invasive Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Retrospective Observational Single-Center Study in Japan.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Observational
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFew clinical studies have been conducted to evaluate the learning curve of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze the learning curve of initial and isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis which performed at our institution.
methodsThis study included 126 patients who underwent initial and isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right infra-axillary mini thoracotomy for aortic valve stenosis. Patients were divided into the first 50 patients [1-50 cases: E group (n = 50)] and the last 76 patients [51-126 cases: L group (n = 76)].
resultsA significantly shorter operative time (239.4 ± 35.2 min vs. 206.5 ± 25.5 min, P < 0.001), cardiopulmonary bypass time (151.1 ± 27.4 min vs. 126.9 ± 20.2 min, P < 0.001) and aortic cross-clamp time (115.2 ± 19.0 min vs. 93.9 ± 14.7 min, P < 0.001) were found in the L group. The learning curves of operative time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and aortic cross-clamp time plateaued after 40 cases.
conclusionsLearning curves were observed in surgical processes such as operative time. A total of 40-50 cases are required to achieve a stable operative time. However, patient outcomes were not significantly different between the groups. This study could be helpful in introducing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and designing training programs.
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.