ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2024
Comparison of clinical effects of coronary artery bypass grafting between left anterior small thoracotomy approach and lower-end sternal splitting approach.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- New Clinical Advances in Minimally Invasive Coronary Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- A review of nomenclature in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting-the anarchy of terminology.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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between the left anterior small thoracotomy (LAST) and lower-end sternal splitting (LESS) approaches for coronary artery disease.
methodsIn total, 110 patients who underwent LAST from October 2015 to December 2020 in Tianjin Chest Hospital were selected as the observation group. Patients who underwent the LESS approach during the same period were analyzed. The propensity score was calculated by a logistic regression model, and nearest-neighbor matching was used for 1:1 matching.
resultsThe length of hospital stay and ventilator support time were significantly shorter in the LAST than LESS group. The target vessels in the obtuse marginal branch and posterior left ventricular artery branch grafts were significantly more numerous in the LAST than LESS group, but those in the right coronary artery graft were significantly less numerous in the LAST group.
conclusionsCABG using either the LAST or LESS approach is safe and effective, especially in low-risk patients. The LAST approach can achieve complete revascularization for multivessel lesions and has the advantages of less trauma and an aesthetic outcome. However, it requires a certain learning curve to master the surgical techniques and has specific surgical indications.
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.