SynthesisInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Comparative Study of Different Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement Techniques: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Totally Endoscopic Approach for Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis investigation aimed to compare different minimally invasive techniques, namely, mini-sternotomy (MS), mini-thoracotomy (MT), and totally thoracoscopic (TT) approaches for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease, emphasizing their respective benefits and limitations to guide clinical decision-making.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. Studies were appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) with a random-effects model was employed to give reflective ranks and compare outcomes across techniques. Treatment ranking was based on p-scores, with MS as the reference. Higher p-scores indicate greater certainty of superiority over competing interventions. The primary outcome was mortality.
resultsTwenty-five observational studies (n = 34 573 patients) were included. Mortality did not differ between techniques (p-score: MS [0.85] ∼ MT [0.34] ∼ TT [0.31]). TT had longer cardiopulmonary bypass (mean difference [MD]: 41.04 [95% CI, 10.98-71.10]) and cross-clamp times (MD: 30.31 [95% CI, 5.81-54.80]) but offered the shortest intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (p-score: TT [0.98] > MT [0.51] > MS [0.01]; MD: -16.00 [95% CI, -26.62 to -5.38]), reduced hospital stay (MD: -2.07 [95% CI, -3.77 to -0.37]), and fewer complications, including neurological events (odds ratio: 1.79 [95% CI, 1.03-3.13]), blood loss (MD: 208.85 mL [95% CI, 102.29-315.40]) compared to MS. MT showed similar outcomes to MS, except for longer operative times (MD: 29.84 [95% CI, 8.35-51.32]) and shorter ICU stays (MD: -5.88 [95% CI, -11.10 to -0.67]).
conclusionsTT may offer advantages such as shorter hospital stays, reduced neurological complications, and less bleeding as compared to MS, although it is associated with longer operative times. However, as all included studies were observational, the findings should be interpreted with caution, and further NMA including only randomized trials is warranted.
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.