ArticleCureus2025
Patient Satisfaction With Minimally Invasive Cardiac Incisions: A Retrospective Single-Centre Survey.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Minimally invasive versus sternotomy cardiac surgery in younger adults: the role of body image in health-related quality of life.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Does Minimally Invasive Valve Surgery Improve Quality of Life Compared to Sternotomy? A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) may offer benefits such as reduced intra-operative bleeding, improved postoperative pain and reduction in wound-related complications such as surgical site infection and wound dehiscence, when compared to median sternotomy (MS). Patient satisfaction may be furthered through improved scar cosmesis. However, to the best of our knowledge no study has formally assessed the scar-related satisfaction associated with MICS. This study was designed to analyse the scar-related satisfaction in patients who underwent cardiac surgery via MICS vs MS. Method A four-question survey was proposed to our patient cohorts via telephone following verbal consent, at least nine months following their operation. The survey consisted of two open questions regarding postoperative analgesia use and days taken to return to daily activities, one visual analogue scale regarding scar satisfaction (1-10) and one binary question regarding tolerance for scar positioning. Additional patient data including age, gender, duration of surgery, and postoperative length of stay, amongst others, were extracted from our patient database. Results Our study shows a reduction in postoperative length of stay (p=0.033) and days taking painkillers (0.049) in the MICS group. Furthermore, scar satisfaction in this group was improved (p=0.032) with a reduction in the number of patients bothered by the location of the scar (p<0.001). 62.5% of the MS group reported that they would have preferred to have had their operation facilitated through MICS. Conclusion Little research has been done comparing patient satisfaction in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery compared to traditional median sternotomy. Our paper shows that minimally invasive cardiac surgery may confer benefit with regard to cosmesis of scar, hospital stay and overall patient satisfaction. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery can improve cosmesis, as shown by our results, which may help boost body image and confidence.
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.