ArticleJTCVS techniques2026
Comparative outcomes of first-time versus redo aortic root replacement in patients with prior sternotomy: A single-center retrospective analysis.
Article in JTCVS techniques, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Aortic root replacement (ARR) is a challenging procedure that requires aortic root implantation, coronary reimplantation, and concomitant aortic and valve surgery. Prior sternotomy (PS) increases case complexity for patients requiring ARR. We aimed to compare outcomes in PS patients undergoing primary ARR and patients undergoing true redo ARR. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing ARR after a PS between 2011 and 2023. Descriptive statistics were compared between the primary ARR and true redo ARR groups. Continuous and categorical variables were reported. Associations between groups were determined, with a Results: A total of 394 patients with history of PS underwent ARR, including 324 with primary ARR and 70 with true redo ARR. There were no differences in baseline comorbidities between groups, with most undergoing true redo ARRs for endocarditis (34.3%). True redo ARR patients were more likely to undergo a "modified Cabrol" for coronary management (17.9% for primary ARR vs 51.4% for true redo ARR; Conclusions: ARR in PS patients can be performed safely with good short- and long-term outcomes. Despite the challenges associated with reoperative aortic root surgery, there was no increase in adverse outcomes for primary ARR compared with true redo ARR.
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.