ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparative efficacy of totally thoracoscopic, mini-thoracotomy, and mini-sternotomy approaches in aortic valve replacement.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Minimally invasive versus full sternotomy for combined aortic valve and proximal aortic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Totally Endoscopic Approach for Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative Study of Different Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Techniques: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Totally Endoscopic Aortic Valve Replacement With Triangulated Suturing: How to Do It.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a critical procedure for patients with aortic valve diseases. This study compares the effectiveness of three minimally-invasive surgical approaches for AVR: totally thoracoscopic (TT), right anterior mini-thoracotomy, and upper mini-sternotomy. We analyzed retrospective data from 130 patients who underwent one of these surgeries, focusing on various factors such as duration of hospital stay, operation time, times for cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamping, postoperative complications, levels of cardiac biomarkers, pain intensity using the Visual Analog Scale, and mid-term survival rates. Results show that while the TT method had the longest operation times, it also had the shortest hospital stays and faster pain reduction post-surgery. Although the TT group initially showed higher cardiac biomarker levels after surgery, these levels normalized by the third day, similar to the other groups. There were no significant differences in mid-term survival and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates among the groups. These findings suggest that the TT method, despite longer surgical times, offers a quicker initial recovery, making it a viable option for AVR.
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.