ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2020
Propensity-matched analysis of two port approach versus three port approach for totally thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Totally endoscopic port access for rheumatic mitral valve replacement: Clinical outcomes and a single surgeon's learning curve experience.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
- Postoperative lactate trajectories predict in-hospital adverse outcomes and differ by surgical approach in cardiac surgery: a propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy of totally thoracoscopic, mini-thoracotomy, and mini-sternotomy approaches in aortic valve replacement.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Safety and efficacy of two-port thoracoscopic aortic valve replacement.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Trends in redo mitral procedure for treating mitral bioprostheses failure: a single center's experience.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo objectively evaluate the feasibility, safety, effectiveness and short-term outcome of totally thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement via two port approach, we conducted a retrospective study comparing two port approach with three port approach for mitral valve replacement.
methodsData for all thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement were analyzed from Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017. To account for selection bias between two port approach and three approach, one-to-one propensity score caliper matching without replacement was performed. The clinical data of the two groups were collected, including preoperative cardiac function, operative data, postoperative complications, and short-term outcome.
resultsA total of 330 patients who underwent totally thoracoscopic mitral replacement via two port or three port from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 were enrolled (two-port group: n=103; three-port group: n=227). Propensity score matching resulted in 71 matched pairs with improved balance post matching in baseline covariates. The baseline differences between two groups were eliminated (P>0.05 for all baseline variables). The cardiopulmonary bypass time (min) (154.27±57.02
conclusionsNo significant differences in cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, overall operative time, perioperative mortality, or complications were observed between two-port and three-port totally thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement. Two-port totally thoracoscopic mitral valve replacement is a safe, effective, and feasible procedure for mitral valve replacement.
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.