Versatility of Hemisternotomy for Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemisternotomy has been suggested as a way to reduce morbidity by limiting the invasiveness of surgical interventions but it is often limited to aortic valve disease. This study reviews the experience of one center employing hemisternotomy and compares patient outcomes, both in-hospital and post-discharge, with a matched group of full sternotomy patients. METHODS: Propensity scores were used to match all hemisternotomy valve cases (Hemi) to full sternotomy valve cases (Full) (1:2). An in-hospital composite outcome (COMP) was defined as mortality, stroke, deep sternal wound infection, sepsis, or return to operating room (OR) for bleeding or valve dysfunction. Provincial administrative health databases were used to determine freedom from mortality and hospital readmission for cardiac cause. RESULTS: During the study period, 70 patients received hemisternotomy for various cardiac surgical interventions with only 38 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. Examining valve surgery exclusively, 65 Hemi were matched to 130 Full. In-hospital complications were low in both groups, with 1.0% mortality and a non-significant trend toward COMP in the Full group (Hemi=4.6%; Full=8.5%; p=0.39). Ventilation time was significantly decreased in Hemi (median four vs. six hours; p=0.002). At two years follow-up, survival was excellent for both (Hemi=95.0%; Full=93.6%) and freedom from cardiac morbidity (Hemi=76.8%, Full=73.2%) was comparable. CONCLUSION: Hemisternotomy appears to be a safe, effective, and versatile alternative for many cardiac surgical interventions. With a median follow-up of four years, this study represents the longest cardiac morbidity follow-up for hemisternotomy patients. However, we were unable to conclusively show a morbidity benefit with this incision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".