ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Robotic-assisted minimally invasive multivessel coronary artery surgery: a propensity-matched analysis.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
backgroundRobotic-assisted CABG is a minimally invasive alternative to conventional sternotomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short and mid-term outcomes of our experience and to enrich the literature with quality comparisons of these procedures.
methodsFrom 1 October, 2020 to 1 July, 2025, 927 CABG procedures were performed at a single institution. Two groups of patients were analyzed: the robotic assisted minimally invasive CABG group (RA-CABG) and the conventional sternotomy CABG group (CS-CABG). This was a retrospective comparison of all consecutive patients undergoing conventional CABG and RA-CABG with the use of propensity score matching with 24 preoperative covariates. Of the 927 cases, 480 patients were matched with 240 patients each in the RA-CABG and CS-CABG groups.
resultsThe matching successfully eliminated all preoperative differences between the groups. There were three conversions to median sternotomy in the robotic group. Number of distal anastamoses per patient was 2.84 in the RA-CABG group and was 3.05 in the CS-CABG group. The cross clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time were statistically significantly shorter in the CS-CABG group (cross clamp: 59 vs. 47, minutes and CPB: 95 vs. 67, minutes, p = 0.001). The RA-CABG group had significantly (p < 0.001) lower 24-h postoperative blood loss (400 ml vs. 800 ml), fewer blood transfusion, shorter mechanical ventilation time (6 vs. 10, hours), shorter length of ICU stay (20 vs. 28, hours), shorter length of hospital stay (6 vs. 7, days). Early mortality (in-hospital and operative) rates were similar between the groups, 0.8% for RA-CABG and 1.3% for CS-CABG (p = 0.683). In like manner, there was no significant difference in mid-term mortality rates between the two groups (p = 0.258).
conclusionsThe RA-CABG is safe and feasible alternative to the conventional sternotomy CABG. This method offers advantages such as avoiding sternotomy, providing greater comfort to the surgeon during LIMA harvesting, and enabling longer LIMA harvesting.
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.