ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Robotic Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Narrative Review of Techniques, Evidence, and Future Directions.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This narrative review summarizes the published literature on robotic coronary revascularization, encompassing robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB), totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB), and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR). These are distinct procedures that differ in operative access, conduit harvesting, use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), and typical patient selection, and are treated as such throughout this review rather than as interchangeable techniques. A structured, non-systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE and major cardiothoracic surgical journals was performed. Articles were selected by the authors based on relevance, methodological quality, and recency. This is explicitly a narrative rather than a systematic review, and no PRISMA methodology was applied. In observational series from experienced centers, RA-MIDCAB and TECAB are associated with low perioperative mortality (0-2.8%), high early left internal thoracic artery (LITA)-to-left anterior descending (LAD) graft patency (>95%), and shorter hospital stay than conventional sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in selected patients. HCR extends robotic revascularization to selected patients with multivessel and left main disease. However, nearly all of this evidence derives from retrospective, single-center, or registry-based observational studies performed at high-volume expert centers in selected patient populations, and comparative claims against conventional CABG are vulnerable to selection bias and residual confounding. Robotic coronary revascularization is a feasible option that has been reproduced across a growing number of high-volume centers for carefully selected patients, but current evidence does not support broad claims of superiority over conventional CABG, and outcome data remain concentrated among a limited number of expert programs. Prospective multicenter and randomized data, standardized outcome definitions, and structured training pathways are needed to define its long-term role in coronary revascularization.
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.