ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2023
An international survey-based assessment of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perfusion Interval and Myocardial Injury in Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: The Modifying Role of Aortic Cross-Clamp Duration.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Simulation Training in Video-Assisted and Robotic-Assisted Cardiac Surgery: A Narrative Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- The cyber-physical paradigm for lifetime aortic valve management: a synthesis of robotics, artificial intelligence, and augmented reality.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Development of a core outcome set of quality indicators for enhanced recovery after surgery in minimally invasive cardiac heart valve surgery by interprofessional Delphi consensus.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMinimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) has been shown to be safe and feasible however its adoption has lagged globally. The international consortium is lacking a set of guidelines that are specific to MIMVS. The aim of this study was to capture the practices of MIMVS in different centres.
methodsA survey was constructed containing 52 multiple-choice and open-ended questions about various aspects of MIMVS. The survey was sent to centres that routinely and frequently perform MIMVS. All surgeons provided informed consent for participating in the survey and publication of data.
resultsThe survey was sent to 75 known surgeons from whom 32 (42%) completed the survey. All survey responders performed >25 MIMVS cases annually. Twenty (68%) of the surgeons thought that simulation training, MIMVS fellowship and proctorship are all essential prior to commencing an MIMVS program. Eleven (34%) of the surgeons stated that 50-100 MIMVS cases are required to overcome the learning curve, followed by 6 (18%) who said 21-30 cases should suffice. Eighteen (62%) of the surgeons had adopted a fully endoscopic approach for their MIMVS, followed by 15 (51%) surgeons who had performed cases via endoscopic-assisted strategies, 5 (17%) surgeons had conducted the operation under direct visualization and 6 (20%) surgeons had used a robot for their MIMVS.
conclusionsThe study highlights a marked variability on training and approach to MIMVS. Consensus guidelines should be established to allow standardization of MIMVS.
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.