Robotic‐assisted coronary artery bypass surgery: an 18‐year single‐centre experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive robot-assisted direct coronary artery bypass (RADCAB) has emerged as a feasible minimally invasive surgical technique for revascularization that might offer several potential advantages over conventional approaches. We present our 18-year experience in RADCAB. METHODS: Between February 1998 and February 2016, 605 patients underwent RADCAB. Patients underwent post-procedural selective graft patency assessment using cardiac catheterization. RESULTS: The mortality rate was 0.3%. The rate of conversion to sternotomy for any cause was reduced from 16.0% of the first 200 cases to 6.9% of the last 405 patients. The patency rate of the LITA-to-LAD anastomosis was 97.4%. Surgical re-exploration for bleeding occurred in 1.8% of patients, and the transfusion rate was 9.2%. Average ICU stay was 1.2 ± 1.4 days, and average hospital stay was 4.8 ± 2.9 days. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting is safe, feasible and it seems to represent an effective alternative to traditional coronary artery bypass grafting in selected patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".