The dome of the left atrium: an alternative approach for mitral valve repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Surgical repair of mitral insufficiency is most commonly performed through a left atriotomy via the inter-atrial groove or trans-atrial (septal) approach. While the dome of the left atrium approach has been described for mitral replacement concerns have been raised about its adequacy for complex repairs. We report our experience with mitral valve repair carried out through the dome of the left atrium, in comparison with more standard approaches. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-one consecutive patients undergoing mitral valve repair for regurgitation were reviewed retrospectively between 1995 and 2001. Three groups were created based on their surgical approach: inter-atrial groove group (n=43), trans-atrial group (n=18), and dome of the left atrium group (between the superior vena cava and the ascending aorta; n=70). RESULTS: The three groups were similar in terms of pre-operative variables except for significantly older patients in the inter-atrial groove group (P<0.001). The etiology of MR was 24% ischemic (P=ns between groups) and 52% of patients had a concomitant procedure, most commonly coronary artery bypass grafting (P=ns). Valve repairs were achieved using Carpentier techniques including: ring annuloplasty (n=130), isolated posterior leaflet resection (n=69), isolated anterior leaflet (n=11), or bi-leaflet repair (n=19). The overall mortality was 4% with a median length of hospitalization of 7 days and these did not differ significantly between groups. However, longer CPB times (P<0.01) and requirement for prolonged mechanical ventilation (P=0.002) were more frequent in the inter-atrial groove group. CONCLUSION: We report a simple, alternative approach for mitral valve repair via the dome of the left atrium that provides similar outcome to other commonly used approaches.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| 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".