↓ Skip to main content

Is a minimally invasive approach for resection of benign cardiac masses superior to standard full sternotomy?

Overview of attention for article published in Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Is a minimally invasive approach for resection of benign cardiac masses superior to standard full sternotomy?
Published in
Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, February 2013
DOI 10.1093/icvts/ivt063
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'is a minimally invasive approach for resection of benign cardiac masses superior to standard full sternotomy?' A total of 50 papers were found using the reported search, of which, 11 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, country, journal, date of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. All 11 papers were retrospective studies, from which 4 were case-control studies comparing the minimally invasive approach with conventional full sternotomy, and 7 were case series. There were two minimally invasive techniques used, a right mini-thoracotomy and a partial hemi-sternotomy, the former being the most commonly used. The resection of benign cardiac masses is a low-risk procedure, with no mortality or conversions to full sternotomy reported. From the 4 case-control studies, cross-clamp time was similar in both groups, and only one report found a prolonged perfusion time with the minimally invasive approach. The incidence of major postoperative complications, including bleeding requiring reoperation (average from case-control studies: 0-4.5 vs 0-5.8%), renal failure (0 vs 0-10%) and prolonged ventilation (6-13 vs 11-19%), for the two approaches was similar. The incidence of postoperative stroke was better for the minimally invasive approach in one study (0 vs 14%, P = 0.023). The main advantages of this technique are shorter intensive care unit (26-31 vs 46-60 h) and hospital stay (3.6-5.2 vs 6.2-7.4 days), the minimally invasive approach being significantly better in one and three reports, respectively. We conclude that minimally invasive resection of a benign cardiac mass using a right mini-thoracotomy approach can be performed with an operative morbidity and mortality at least similar to the standard full sternotomy approach. The information currently available for the minimally invasive approach for the resection of benign cardiac masses is limited and based only on retrospective studies and, therefore, prospective studies are required to confirm the potential benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 16%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 15 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2013.
All research outputs
#31,576,053
of 34,763,505 outputs
Outputs from Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery
#2,264
of 2,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,391
of 240,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery
#40
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,763,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,677 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,010 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.