Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41579302›Full record

SynthesisGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2026

Comparison of perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive and conventional aortic root surgery in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anastasiia Karadzha, Soslan Enginoev, Hartzell V Schaff, Aleksandr Suvorov, Murat Mukharyaov, Stepan Babeshko, Agunda Chekhoeva, Bakytbek Kadyraliev, Alexander Bogachev-Prokophiev

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anastasiia KaradzhaDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. anastasiiakaradzha@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0958-7835
Soslan EnginoevFederal State Budgetary Institution «Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery» of theMinistry of Health of the Russian Federation, Astrakhan, Russian Federation.
Hartzell V SchaffDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Aleksandr SuvorovInstitute of Personalized Cardiology of the Center for Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Murat MukharyaovUniversity Clinic Jena, Thuringia, Germany.
Stepan BabeshkoRegion Hospital #1, Krasnodar Region, Russian Federation.
Agunda ChekhoevaDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, The University Hospital of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Bakytbek KadyralievS.G. Sukhanov Federal Center of Cardiovascular Surgery, E.A. Vagner Perm State Medical, Perm, Russian Federation.
Alexander Bogachev-ProkophievHeart Valve Surgery Department, E. Meshalkin National Medical Research Centre, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation.

Funding

Russian Science Support Foundation code 03.000.B.166
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMinimally invasive approaches have become a gold standard for most cardiac surgery procedures, but their use in aortic root surgery remains limited. Previous analyses suggested potential benefits of minimally invasive aortic root surgery (MIARS) over conventional aortic root surgery (CARS). This study aims to provide updated insights into intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes between MIARS and CARS.

methods. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. Two-arm observational studies comparing MIARS and CARS were included. The literature search was conducted using a mix of keywords and standardized indexing terms in the eight sources up to December 16, 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I.

resultsTwenty-one studies comparing MIARS and CARS were included, resulting in 2908 MIARS and 3,456 CARS patients. Minimally invasive approaches were associated with shorter mechanical ventilation (−4.72 h; p < .001), ICU stay (−0.46 days; p < .001), hospital stay (−1.65 days; p < .001), reduced postoperative bleeding (−0.82 units; p < .001), blood transfusion (−0.50 units; p < .001) and atrial fibrillation rate (RR 0.73; p = .006). Safety outcomes, including the risk of mortality, stroke, and renal failure, as well as surgical procedure duration, reflected by aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, were comparable between MIARS and CARS.

conclusionThe use of minimally invasive approaches for aortic root procedures may offer benefits over median sternotomy, including shorter recovery times and reduced postoperative bleeding, without compromising safety. However, the certainty of the available evidence remains low.

Indexed as

AortaCardiac Surgical ProceduresMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresAdultHumansPostoperative ComplicationsRisk FactorsTreatment OutcomeAortic root surgeryMeta-analysisMinimally invasive cardiac surgeryPartial sternotomySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41579302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.