ArticleThe Annals of thoracic surgery2026
Mortality and Reintervention After Robotic Mitral Repair in the United States.
Article in The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Prior minimally invasive experience and the robotic mitral valve learning curve: a focused narrative review and the tactile-visual decoupling hypothesis.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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHigh-volume centers report acceptable outcomes for robotic mitral repair, yet population-level data are limited. This study compared late mortality and reintervention rates for robotic vs nonrobotic mitral repair in the United States.
methodsThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services database validated against clinical records was used to identify 26,524 patients with isolated first-time nonemergency mitral repairs with or without tricuspid repairs or ablations without other concomitant procedures. Of these patients, 2227 (8.3%) underwent robotic repair and 24,297 (91.7%) underwent nonrobotic repairs. Propensity score matching was performed on 30 baseline characteristics. The primary end point was a composite of death or mitral reintervention, and the secondary end point was all-cause mortality. Both were compared in a Cox proportional hazards model. Falsification end point analysis assessed for potential unmeasured confounders with death as a competing risk.
resultsMatching yielded 2226 patient pairs (mean age, 72 years; 44% female; 9% with concomitant tricuspid repair; 7% ablation). Thirty-day mortality did not differ between the groups (1.3% robotic vs 1.3% nonrobotic; P = .90). Robotic repair was associated with lower postoperative atrial fibrillation (19.1% vs 23.2%; P = .001) and a shorter hospital stay (median 5 days [interquartile range, 4-7 days] vs 7 days [interquartile range, 5-9 days]; P < .001). At 5 years, the composite of death or mitral reintervention (17.8% vs 18.6%; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79-1.09; P = .37) and all-cause mortality (14.9% vs 15.6%; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.11; P = .40) were similar, with falsification testing confirming minimal confounding (P = .20).
conclusionsRobotic mitral repair in the United States is safe, yielding outcomes comparable to those of nonrobotic repair.
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.