Ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement: a study of the preliminary experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the technical feasibility and the postoperative course of aortic valve replacement through a ministernotomy. SETTING: The Montreal Heart Institute and the Hôpital Lariboisière, Paris, France. DESIGN: A case series from 2 institutions. PATIENTS: Fifty-one patients who underwent aortic valve replacement through a ministernotomy. The sternal incision was started at the level of the sternal notch extending down to the third or fourth intercostal space with a transverse section of the sternum at this level on both sides or limited to the right side (inverted T or L incision). Thirty-nine patients had aortic stenoses, 6 patients were operated for aortic insufficiency and 6 had mixed disease. The mean (and standard deviation) preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 0.56 (0.17). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cardiac bypass time, complications and outcome. RESULTS: The patients received Carbomedics and St. Jude mechanical valves, Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards bioprostheses. Thirty-eight patients were administered antegrade and retrograde cardioplegia, 10 patients antegrade and 3 retrograde blood cardioplegia only. The mean (and standard error) cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time were 104 (38) minutes and 72 (16) minutes respectively. Two patients (4%) died and 2 patients (4%) showed evidence of a stroke after the procedure. Hospital stay averaged 8 (5) days. CONCLUSION: We conclude that aortic valve replacement can be done through a ministernotomy approach with perioperative results similar to those obtained through a conventional sternotomy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".