ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2026
Robotic vs. sternotomy mitral valve replacement in rheumatic disease: early postoperative outcomes compared.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2026. 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.
- Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Replacement: A Retrospective Comparison of Sternotomy, Mini-Thoracotomy, and Periareolar Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of robot-assisted surgical and transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defect: A single-center retrospective study.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare early postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted mitral valve replacement (r-MVR) and conventional sternotomy-based mitral valve replacement (c-MVR) in patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease (RMVD).
methodsA retrospective analysis included 225 adult patients who underwent isolated MVR for RMVD between November 2018 and December 2023. Among them, 105 underwent r-MVR and 120 underwent c-MVR. Evaluated parameters included operative time, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times, extubation time, ICU and hospital stay, chest drainage, mechanical ventilation duration, postoperative pain scores, complications, and 30-day mortality.
resultsPatients in the r-MVR group showed significantly better short-term outcomes. Postoperative drainage was lower (323 ± 154 mL vs. 532 ± 320 mL), red blood cell transfusion was reduced (0.8 ± 0.9 vs. 2.3 ± 2.4 units), and intubation time was shorter (10.2 ± 6.2 vs. 17.7 ± 21.3 h) compared to the c-MVR group (p < 0.001). Additionally, hospital stay (6.8 ± 3.7 vs. 9.4 ± 4.7 days) and pain scores (2.4 ± 0.85 vs. 3.5 ± 0.96) were significantly improved in the robotic group. However, CPB and cross-clamp times were longer in r-MVR (168 ± 47 vs. 104 ± 31 min and 106 ± 34 vs. 69 ± 21 min, respectively; p < 0.001). Complication and 30-day mortality rates were similar between groups.
conclusionRobotic-assisted mitral valve replacement is a safe and effective alternative to conventional surgery in RMVD. Despite longer operative times, it offers better early recovery and may be preferred in experienced centers for selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40730743What 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.