SynthesisOpen heart2026
Minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefits of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) compared with conventional approaches (CMVS, conventional mitral valve surgery) remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the short-term benefits between these approaches.
objectiveTo evaluate the short-term benefits of MIMVS versus CMVS in adults.
methodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, SciELO, clinical trial registries and grey literature using MeSH terms, without date or language restrictions. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing MIMVS and CMVS in adults (≥18 years) were included. Robotic, endovascular and redo procedures were excluded. Two reviewers independently extracted data following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Primary outcomes were mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI) and wound infection.
resultsNine studies (1248 patients) from eight RCTs were included (686 CMVS, 562 MIMVS). MIMVS showed no significant difference in mortality or AKI compared with CMVS. There was a trend towards fewer wound infections (risk ratio=0.47; 95% CI=0.22 to 1.00) and shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference=-0.71 days; 95% CI=-1.47 to 0.04). MIMVS reduced reoperation for bleeding (RR=0.24; 95% CI=0.06 to 0.92) and hospital stay (mean difference=-1.83 days; 95% CI=-3.03 to -0.64). Operative times were longer with MIMVS, but without clinical impact. Stroke, myocardial infarction, mechanical ventilation time and transfusion rates were similar. Most studies had low risk of bias, with moderate to high certainty of evidence. No heterogeneity was detected for primary outcomes.
conclusionMIMVS enhances postoperative recovery through shorter hospital stays, fewer reoperations for bleeding and a trend towards fewer wound infections and shorter ICU stays compared with CMVS. Despite longer operative times, key safety is comparable between techniques. The overall certainty of evidence is high for most outcomes, supporting strong clinical recommendations in favour of MIMVS. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022321939.
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.