SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Conventional hybrid coronary vs. robot-assisted minimally invasive direct revascularization: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- Robotic Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Narrative Review of Techniques, Evidence, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Evolution of coronary artery bypass grafting: conventional, minimally invasive, robotic, and hybrid revascularisation techniques.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), a revascularization strategy that amalgamates the minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) procedure and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), represents a significant advancement in coronary artery disease treatment. This study compares conventional and robotic approaches in HCR. Methods: A systematic literature review and individual patient data analysis was conducted via PubMed following PRISMA guidelines, including original works published until 28 February 2025. Results: 32 publications met the inclusion criteria, providing individual data from 2,048 patients. All patients underwent MIDCAB for LAD lesions and perioperative PCI for non-LAD lesions. 903 patients (670 male, 233 female; mean age 51.69 ± 7.77 years; BMI 34.66 ± 13.13) were treated with robot-assisted HCR, whilst 1,145 patients (890 male, 255 female; mean age 69.62 ± 8.42 years; BMI 26.62 ± 1.30) underwent conventional HCR. The robot-assisted group showed significantly higher rates of right coronary artery (RCA) stenosis (18.60% vs. 16.07%, Conclusion: Hybrid coronary revascularization offers a less invasive alternative with potential benefits. Robotic assistance may enhance outcomes, but limited adoption and heterogeneous data underscore the need for further investigation and validation.
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.