welcomes you to the new, improved website!Meta-analysis of 119 studies (approx 38,000 patients) evaluating outcomes of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery with conventional sternotomy approach.MMVS was associated with fewer days in hospital (RCT: MD: -2.2 days, 95% CI, [-3.7 to -0.8]; observational: MD: -2.4 days, 95% CI, [-2.7 to -2.1]). Observational studies suggested that MMVS reduced transfusion requirements with fewer units transfused per patient (MD: -1.2; 95% CI, [-1.6 to -0.9]) and fewer patients transfused (RR, 0.7; 95% CI, [0.6-0.7]). Observational data also suggested lower mortality with MMVS (RR, 0.6; 95% CI, [0.5-0.7], p < .001, I2 = 0%), but this was not corroborated by RCT data. The risk of postoperative mitral regurgitation (≥2+ or requiring re-intervention) did not differ between the two groups.
Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery versus conventional sternotomy mitral valve surgery: A systematic review and meta-analys
Source: Journal of Cardiac Surgery
Source URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35170791/
Keywords:
Author(s): Adam Eqbal, Saurabh Gupta, Ameen Basha, Yuan Qiu, Nicole Wu, Filip Rega, Fan Victor Chu, Emilie P Belley-Cote, Richard Whitlock
1 Comment
Minimal invasive mitral surgery is done by few surgeons who have special training and great enthusiasm about the procedure. Ie they are pioneers in this field.
Also they operate on selected cases .
You can not compare selected patients done by selected surgeons to another group of day to day practice patients done by a general cardiac surgeons..
In the end we do life saving operations and in what matters is a good operation with a live patient regardless of how long the incision.