ArticleThe International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc2025
Comparison of Endoaortic Balloon Occlusion and Transthoracic Aortic Clamp for Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc, 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.
- The robotic revolution in cardiac surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) using endoaortic balloon (EAB) and transthoracic aortic clamp (TAC) techniques. A comprehensive search of relevant databases was conducted through July 2024. Pooled results were calculated, and subgroup analyses of studies published during early and late eras were performed. Additionally, a meta-regression analysis based on the year of publication was conducted to assess potential influences on outcomes. The systematic review identified 17 non-randomized studies encompassing a total of 8,253 patients. In terms of intraoperative outcomes, no significant differences were observed in operation duration, aortic cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, or rates of sternotomy conversion and iatrogenic aortic dissection. However, subgroup analysis of early-era studies demonstrated significantly longer operation times in the EAB cohort (
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.