ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of the Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacements (AVRs) Performed via Conventional Full Sternotomy and Upper Mini Sternotomy: Our Experience at Hayatabad Medical Complex, Pakistan.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is a commonly performed procedure, yielding excellent long-term outcomes. Comparing a mini sternotomy with a conventional sternotomy is essential to evaluate less invasive options that can improve patient recovery and reduce postoperative complications. This insight supports surgical decision-making for better AVR patient outcomes. Methodology This retrospective comparative study aims to compare clinical outcomes between mini sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (mini-AVR) and conventional full sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (FS-AVR). Patient records of isolated AVR from January 2021 to July 2023 were reviewed, excluding those with comorbidities or requiring concomitant procedures. Outcomes measured included sternal wound infections, operative time, length of ICU stay, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, and aortic cross-clamp time. Results The study included 65 patients (47 males and 18 females). Among the participants, 30 patients underwent AVR using full sternotomy, while 35 patients had the procedure performed via upper mini-sternotomy. The mini-AVR group experienced significantly less bleeding and a reduced need for blood transfusions compared to the FS-AVR group. Additionally, patients in the FS-AVR group had longer ICU stays and prolonged ventilation times. Notably, in contrast to findings from other studies, our research revealed that CPB time and aortic cross-clamp time were shorter in the mini-AVR group. Conclusion Mini-sternotomy has proven to be a safe and effective approach for AVR, with the mini-AVR group experiencing fewer complications, such as reduced bleeding and decreased need for blood transfusions. Additionally, patients benefit from shorter ICU stays, reduced ventilation time, and quicker overall recovery.
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.