ReviewJournal of chest surgery2025
Minimally Invasive versus Complete Sternotomy for Reimplantation Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of chest surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Despite growing interest, comparative data on the minimally invasive David procedure (MI-DP) versus the traditional complete sternotomy approach (CS-DP) remain scarce, largely due to the inherent complexity of the operation. The present meta-analysis compared the perioperative outcomes of MI-DP and CS-DP. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing MI-DP and CS-DP. Pooled odds ratios and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using RevMan ver. 8.13.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration). A subgroup analysis of exclusively propensity-matched data was also performed. Seven studies comprising 1,124 patients were included, with 394 (35%) in the MI-DP group. MI-DP was associated with reduced blood loss (MD, -123.1 mL; 95% CI, -150.1 to -96.1 mL; p<0.0001), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD, -0.5 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.4 days; p<0.00001), and hospital stay (MD, -2.8 days; 95% CI, -4.9 to -0.7 days; p=0.01), albeit with a longer cross-clamp time (MD, 13.3 minutes; 95% CI, 2.8 to 23.9 minutes; p=0.01). Thirty-day mortality and complications, including neurological deficits and reoperation for bleeding, were similar between groups. The subgroup analysis restricted to propensity-matched data confirmed these benefits and revealed additional reductions in mechanical ventilation time (MD, -6.3 hours; 95% CI, -7.2 to -5.4 hours; p<0.00001) and red blood cell transfusion requirements (MD, -85.6 mL; 95% CI, -114.6 to -56.5 mL; p<0.00001). MI-DP offers reduced ventilation time, blood loss, and ICU and hospital stays without compromising safety. However, our findings should be interpreted cautiously pending validation by future prospective studies (PROSPERO CRD42025631006).
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.