ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2021
Patient-reported outcome measures after mitral valve repair: a comparison between minimally invasive and sternotomy.
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early outcomes and resource utilization across contemporary transcatheter and surgical valve interventions: a single-center observational study.BMC research notes · 2026Observational
- Article
- Optimizing Myocardial Protection in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgeries: A Network Comparison of Del Nido, Histidine-Tryptophan-Ketoglutarate, and Blood Cardioplegia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- An international survey-based assessment of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve surgery: A propensity score matching analysis.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2023Article
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery.JAMA network open · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare patient-reported outcome measures of minimally invasive (MI) to sternotomy (ST) mitral valve repair.
methodsWe included all patients undergoing isolated mitral valve surgery via either a right mini-thoracotomy (MI) or ST over a 36-month period. Patients were asked to complete a modified Composite Physical Function questionnaire. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures were compared between 2 propensity-matched groups (n = 47/group), assessing 3 domains: 'Recovery Time', 'Postoperative Pain' (at day 2 and 1, 3, 6 and 12 weeks) and 'Treatment Satisfaction'. Composite scores for each domain were subsequently constructed and multivariable analysis was used to determine whether surgical approach was associated with domain scores.
resultsThe response rate was 79%. There was no mortality in either group. In the matched groups, operative times were longer in the MI group (P < 0.001), but postoperative outcomes were similar. Composite scores for Recovery Time [ST 51.7 (31.8-62.1) vs MI 61.7 (43.1-73.9), P = 0.03] and Pain [ST 65.7 (40.1-83.1) vs MI 79.1 (65.5-89.5), P = 0.02] significantly favoured the MI group. Scores in the Treatment Satisfaction domain were high for both surgical approaches [ST 100 (82.5-100) vs MI 100 (95.0-100), P = 0.15]. The strongest independent predictor of both faster recovery parameter estimate 12.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7-18.3, P < 0.001] and less pain parameter estimate 7.6 (95% CI 0.7-14.5, P = 0.03) was MI surgery.
conclusionsMI surgery was associated with faster recovery and less pain; treatment satisfaction and safety profiles were similar.
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.