Mini Right Anterior Thoracotomy Approach versus Sternotomy for Resection of Intracardiac Myxoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The standard approach in treating cardiac myxoma is the median full sternotomy. After recent advances in surgical techniques, the mini right anterior thoracotomy has emerged as an alternative method. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study to compare the clinical outcomes of the mini right anterior thoracotomy approach with those of the sternotomy approach for resection of cardiac myxoma at the Montreal Heart Institute. There were 20 patients treated using a mini right anterior thoracotomy (4-5 cm) and 23 patients were treated using a median sternotomy. RESULTS: No early mortalities were found in either group. Although the cardiopulmonary bypass time and aorta cross-clamp time were not significantly different between the two groups (64.3 mn ± 18 and 37.2 mn ± 15 vs 54.3 mn ± 25 and 37.20 mn ± 2), preoperative blood loss (106 mn ± 95 vs 338 mn ± 270) was significantly less in the mini right anterior thoracotomy group. The intensive care unit and hospital stay (1.65 days ± 1.2 and 5.70 days ± 3) were shorter with the mini right anterior thoracotomy approach. CONCLUSIONS: A minimally invasive surgery through mini right anterior thoracotomy is a good alternative technique for treating cardiac myxoma. Despite the small size of the experience, there is a clear diminution in preoperative blood loss and an interesting trend toward a shorter intensive care unit and hospital stay.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".