ArticleSingapore medical journal2022
Comparison of the safety and efficacy between minimally invasive cardiac surgery and median sternotomy in a low-risk mixed Asian population in Singapore.
Article in Singapore medical journal, 2022. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery Improve Quality of Life Compared to Sternotomy? A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A novel nomogram for predicting the implementation of ultra-fast-track cardiac anesthesia for minimally invasive cardiac surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Endoscopic mitral valve repair-one hundred and one ways to use neochords: a narrative review.Journal of visualized surgery · 2025Review
- Enhanced Recovery and Reduced Complications with Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Compared to Open Sternotomy.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2025Article
- A multivariate and retrospective analysis of the impact of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in Open-Heart surgery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in a Low-Risk Asian Cohort: A Propensity-Score Matched Study.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- Is preoperative IABP insertion significantly reducing postoperative complication in augmented high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting patients?Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- A Comprehensive Clinical Outcome Analysis of Endoscopic Vessel Harvesting for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) has attracted increasing attention, with institutions increasingly adopting this approach over conventional median sternotomy (MS). This study aimed to describe the outcomes of minimally invasive cardiac surgery in our institution as the only centre with an established MICS programme in Singapore. Methods: Patients who had undergone cardiac procedures such as heart valve replacement or repair, coronary artery bypass grafting or atrial septal defect repair were included in the study. We analysed 4063 patients who had undergone MS and 390 patients who had undergone MICS between January 2009 and February 2020. Results: Over the years, the number of MICS procedures performed increased, along with an increase in MICS operations with two or more concomitant cardiac procedures and a decrease in postoperative length of stay. Compared with patients who underwent MS, those who underwent MICS had shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, patients who underwent MICS had lower rates of atrial fibrillation (P = 0.021), reoperation (P = 0.028) and prolonged ventilation (P < 0.001). However, the rates of other postoperative complications were comparable between patients who underwent MICS and those who underwent MS. Conclusion: In our institution, MICS is a safe, reproducible and efficacious technique that yields superior outcomes compared with conventional MS procedures, in some aspects. The results of this study provide further evidence and support towards adopting the minimally invasive approach to cardiac surgery in a carefully selected group of cardiac patients in Singapore.
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.