ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2026
Beyond Surgical Access: Evidence Supporting a Multidimensional Concept of Surgical Invasiveness in Contemporary Cardiac Surgery.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery (MICS) has traditionally been defined according to the extent of surgical access, primarily focusing on the avoidance of full sternotomy and the reduction in incision size. However, the rapid evolution of cardiac surgery, including technological innovation, robotic platforms, hybrid procedures, and enhanced perioperative management, has progressively challenged the adequacy of purely anatomical definitions of invasiveness. Contemporary surgical practice suggests that the overall impact of a procedure on the patient extends beyond the surgical incision itself and includes several physiological and patient-centered dimensions. This narrative review discusses the contemporary meaning of invasiveness in cardiac surgery and examines the limitations of conventional definitions of MICS based exclusively on surgical exposure. This narrative review is based on a non-systematic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, and uses a thematic synthesis approach to explore the multidimensional concept of surgical invasiveness in cardiac surgery. Particular attention is given to the growing role of patient-centered outcomes and perioperative burden in defining procedural invasiveness. Building upon emerging conceptual perspectives in the literature, this review highlights a multidimensional interpretation of MICS, in which technical, physiological, and recovery-related factors collectively contribute to the assessment of surgical invasiveness.
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.