Minimally invasive thoracotomy for myocardial revascularisation. A study of 32 cases.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the advantages offered by a myocardial revascularisation technique proposed by Kolessov in 1967: minimally invasive thoracotomy for myocardial revascularisation. The aim was to assess its short and medium-term benefits. During the course of the 1980s, the problems linked to extracorporeal circulation (ECC) and the contraindications for traditional myocardial revascularisation led to a renewed popularity of "beating heart" revascularisation techniques. METHODS: The largest and most extensive series of patients in the literature undergoing myocardial revascularisation during left mini-thoracotomy was reported by Calafiore et al. In this study we report the series treated by our centre which, albeit involving only 32 cases, obtained good results in the short and medium term. This surgical procedure can only be applied to patients presenting monovasal obstructive coronary disease affecting the anterior interventricular artery (IVA) which must not present small calibre, calcified walls or a lateralised or intramyocardial anatomic position. RESULTS: Invasive and non-invasive instrumental tests carried out to control the distal anastomoses of the left internal mammary artery (IMA) did not reveal angulations and/or stenosing tractions before the anastomosis of IMA to a significant extent also for treatment, when isolating IMA, able to obtain the longest possible length and the best mobility. No infection of surgical wounds was reported postoperatively, as sometimes occurs in median longitudinal sternotomy. CONCLUSIONS: The 2-year follow-up showed the resolution of angina in 100% of the patients studied, as well as a satisfactory and rapid renewal of social relations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".