ArticleJTCVS structural and endovascular2025
Robotic endoscopic cardiac surgery in the reoperative patient: Is it feasible?
Article in JTCVS structural and endovascular, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Robotic cardiac surgery is increasingly adopted in the United States but remains a relative contraindication in reoperative settings for many programs. We hypothesize that in experienced hands, robotic approaches offer significant advantages in redo cardiac surgery by avoiding graft and cardiac injury during sternal reentry. We present our single-center experience with robotic redo endoscopic cardiac surgery, including midterm outcomes up to 10 years. Methods: A retrospective review of 1834 robotic cardiac surgeries from 2013 to 2024 was performed. Of these, 105 patients (6%) with previous cardiac surgery were included. Patients underwent either epicardial (n = 45) or intracardiac (n = 60) procedures. Preoperative characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and midterm survival were analyzed. Results: In the intracardiac group, procedures included mitral valve (n = 49), aortic valve (n = 4), tricuspid valve (n = 3), cryomaze (n = 2), myxoma (n = 1), and atrial septal defect (n = 1). Epicardial procedures included totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (n = 31), pericardiectomy (n = 4), left ventricular leads (n = 7), and others (n = 3). The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 4.0%. Thirty-day mortality was 1.9% (observed to expected ratio 0.5), and hospital mortality was 1.9%. Conversion to sternotomy occurred in 2 cases (1.9%). Intensive care unit and hospital length of stay averaged 1.6 and 3.2 days, respectively. At a mean follow-up of 37.5 months, all-cause mortality was 15%, with 6.6% cardiac-related mortality. Conclusions: Robotic endoscopic cardiac surgery is feasible and safe in selected reoperative patients. Despite the challenges of reoperation, excellent early outcomes and acceptable midterm survival were achieved. These procedures can be successfully integrated into comprehensive robotic programs to expand minimally invasive options for complex cardiac reoperations.
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.