ReviewJournal of visualized surgery2025
Robotic versus non-robotic endoscopic invasive mitral valve repair: a narrative review of current evidence and evolving practice.
Review in Journal of visualized surgery, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Mitral valve repair is the gold standard for degenerative disease, with access evolving from sternotomy to minimally invasive thoracoscopic and robotic techniques. Both are safe, widely used, and reproducible. This narrative review compares robotic and non-robotic approaches regarding outcomes and efficiency. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, including studies published January 1990-January 2025. The Boolean search strategy included: "mitral valve" AND "robotic" AND "endoscopic" OR "thoracoscopic" OR "minimally invasive". The search was limited to English-language articles. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed and directly compared robotic versus non-robotic endoscopic mitral valve repair in adults (≥18 years) with mitral regurgitation. Abstracts, conference proceedings, reviews, meta-analyses, pediatric studies, case reports <10 patients, and non-comparative studies were excluded. Key Content and Findings: A total of 9 studies were included. Patient age ranged 46-69 years, mostly male. Body mass index (BMI) was similar across groups. Mitral valve repair was performed in all cases. Operative times were longer in the robotic group: cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) ranged 85 [interquartile range (IQR), 73-105] to 275 [standard deviation (SD) ±56] minute, and cross-clamp 57 (IQR, 48-67) to 152 (SD ±38) minute. Intensive care units (ICU) stay varied, with Albano Conclusions: Minimally invasive mitral valve repair is safe and reproducible, with no survival difference between robotic and non-robotic approaches. Robotic cases showed longer bypass and cross-clamp times but shorter hospital stays. Transfusion needs were inconsistent, neurologic complications were rare and slightly fewer with robotics, and both methods showed excellent mid-term durability. Further studies are necessary to confirm these data.
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.