ArticleJTCVS open2026
Early outcomes of a formal robotic congenital cardiac surgery program.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Robotic cardiac surgery for congenital disease has been limited mainly to adult patients. Here we describe cardiac repairs in pediatric and adult patients with a variety of congenital lesions performed in a robotic cardiac surgery program. Methods: All patients undergoing robotic repair of congenital anomalies at the Children's Hospital of New York and Milstein Hospital between November 2023 and April 2025 were included. Cardiopulmonary bypass was achieved using open or percutaneous femoral arterial and venous access, along with jugular venous access. Results: Twenty-six patients were identified, including 11 pediatric patients (range, age 6-19 years) and 15 adults (range, 22-63 years). The most frequent indications were secundum atrial septal defect (n = 14; 53.8%) and partial anomalous pulmonary venous return (n = 7; 26.9%), including sinus venosus atrial septal defect (n = 4; 15.4%) and scimitar syndrome (n = 3; 11.5%). The median patient age and weight were 27.0 years (interquartile range [IQR], 12.3-39.5 years) and 65.7 kg (IQR: 53.2-76.7 kg). The median length of stay was 4 days (IQR, 3-4.8 days). Aortic cross-clamping was achieved using a transthoracic clamp (n = 10) or endoaortic balloon (n = 15). No death, conversion to sternotomy, or reoperation occurred. Three cases of pleural effusion and 2 cases of pericarditis occurred. Conclusions: Robotic surgery is a safe and efficacious strategy for repairing selected congenital heart lesions across the lifespan. Adoption of robotic surgery in congenital heart disease likely will expand as comfort with the technology evolves.
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.