ArticleIndian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2025
Robotic mitral valve replacement: a short-term single institution experience.
Article in Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2025. 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.
- Outcomes of robotic repair for the degenerative mitral valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
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
Purpose: This study evaluates the safety, efficacy, reproducibility and short-term clinical outcomes of robotic mitral valve replacement (MVR). Methods: Between September 2022 and May 2024, 64 robotic cardiac and thoracic surgeries were performed in our institute. Twelve consecutive patients who underwent MVR using da Vinci Xi robotic system were retrospectively analysed. It was performed by right side approach using four instrument ports and one 4-cm working port, under peripheral cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) surveillance. Results: The mean age of patients was 39 ± 9 years (median = 42 years), male-to-female ratio of 1:2, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) = 60 ± 5%. The mean CPB and aortic cross clamp (ACX) time was 273 ± 119 min (174-568 min) and 160 ± 91 min (85-395 min) respectively. All patients received mechanical valve. The ventilation time and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 21 ± 8 h and 3 ± 2 days respectively. The median drain output was 258 ml (Interquartile Range (IQR) = 240-353ml). Two patients (16.67%) were re-explored the same day in view of excessive drain output. Two patients required postoperative opioid analgesics (16.67%). One (8.33%) patient had groin wound infection. There was no mortality. Patients were ambulated from postoperative day 3.91 ± 1.80 days. Duration of hospital stay post-surgery was 9 ± 3 days, and patients were discharged after therapeutic International Normalised Ratio (INR) of 3 was achieved. Postoperative pain score of study group was 3 ± 1 (mild). Patients were satisfied with aesthetically pleasing scar and returned to routine activity within 4 ± 1 weeks. The mean follow-up time was 10.17 ± 5.11 months. Conclusion: Robotic MVR surgery is safe and has excellent short-term outcomes. Patients experienced less pain and faster 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.