ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Robot-assisted vs. conventional MIDCAB: A propensity-matched analysis.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extending the Indications for Full Revascularization with Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Single-Center Initial Experience with Robotic Assisted Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.Annals of thoracic surgery short reports · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted minimally invasive multivessel coronary artery surgery: a propensity-matched analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Mini- and Micro-Invasive Approaches in Cardiac Surgery: Current Techniques, Outcomes, and Future Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Osteophyte of the first costochondral joint is a reliable landmark to facilitate standardized robotic left internal mammary artery harvesting.JTCVS techniques · 2025Article
- Small cuts, big questions: the impact of incision length in minimally invasive robotic cardiac surgery.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Subcutaneous emphysema in patients undergoing robotic cardiac surgery: risk factors and clinical outcome.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of two decades of reported outcomes for robotic coronary artery bypass grafting.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of clinical effects of coronary artery bypass grafting between left anterior small thoracotomy approach and lower-end sternal splitting approach.The Journal of international medical research · 2024Article
- Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Surgical Technique.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Total arterial revascularization using robot assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass: an Indian experience.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
- A Single Center Initial Experience with Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (RA-MIDCAB).Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic assistance (RA) in the harvesting of internal thoracic artery during minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) provides several potential benefits for surgeon and patient in comparison with conventional MIDCAB. The two technical options have not been thoroughly compared in the literature yet. We aimed to perform this in our cohort with the use of propensity-score matching (PSM). Methods: This was a retrospective comparison of all consecutive patients undergoing conventional MIDCAB (2005-2021) and RA-MIDCAB (2018-2021) at our institution with the use of PSM with 27 preoperative covariates. Results: Throughout the study period 603 patients underwent conventional and 132 patients underwent RA-MIDCAB. One hundred and thirty matched pairs were selected for further comparison. PSM successfully eliminated all preoperative differences. Patients after RA-MIDCAB had lower 24 h blood loss post-operatively (300 vs. 450 ml, Conclusions: RA-MIDCAB is an attractive alternative to conventional MIDCAB. It is associated with lower post-operative blood loss and potentially faster rehabilitation after surgery. The mortality and the risk of perioperative complications are comparable among the groups.
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.